Mr Speaker, I move:

1. (1) Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill [B 93—88 (GA)];
2. (2) Slums Bill [B 102—88 (GA)];
3. (3) National Roads Amendment Bill [B 99A and B—88 (GA)];
4. (4) Free Settlement Areas Bill [B 110—88 (GA)];
5. (5) Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill [B 111—88 (GA)];
6. (6) Group Areas Amendment Bill [B 115—88 (GA)],

Mr Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to move this motion today because this is not an elegant way of achieving a goal.

I totally agree with that!

In this case, the goal is to place this House and this Parliament in a position to proceed with their business.

The factual circumstances which compel me to move this motion are that the refusal, or ostensible refusal, of two Houses of Parliament thus far to consider the Orders of the Day appearing on the Order Paper, creates a situation, as far as some of the Bills before us at present are concerned, which prevents any further debate on or discussion of those Bills, in this House as well.

Those Orders of the Day were legally placed before Parliament. This was done in accordance with Rules which have been agreed to. In the two other Houses, however, certain events occurred which were aimed at preventing or could prevent, the finalisation of work legally before us at present.

My information is that the House of Delegates resolved to have a series of Bills, which legally appeared on the Order Paper, stand over to February 1989. I contend that that is a breach of an agreement reached when the Joint Rules were adopted. It is in conflict with the spirit of the Constitution. That step is also in conflict with the spirit of the Joint Rules which were adopted.

So they are striking, are they? [Interjections.]

The strategy of the House of Representatives is not all that clear. What is clear, however, is that until 2 September they do not intend to consider what has legally been placed before us. As a result, in cases of amendments to Bills being introduced here, the House of Assembly cannot proceed to dispose of its business in regard to those Bills.

The purpose of this motion is merely to enable the House of Assembly to dispose of its work. That is why we are here. That is why we were elected. That is why we came here, that is why considerable costs were incurred, for which the taxpayer is liable, and that is what we are going to do in this House. We are going to do our work. [Interjections.]

The NP is not prepared to stand around watching use being made of technical points to halt the democratic process—in this case the legislative process. The NP is not prepared to have the centuries-old traditions of the parliamentary system trampled underfoot. [Interjections.] Those traditions are part of the system of values which must and will be preserved in this country at all costs. Let me say today that in the process we shall use every legal means at our disposal. This motion before the House is one such means.

The effect of this motion is very technical, and hon members must permit me to explain it briefly in lay terms. In terms of Rule 150, read in conjunction with Rule 151, when amendments in regard to a Bill are before the House, such a Bill must be referred back to the joint committee which dealt with the Bill after the debate in all three Houses has been concluded. If the other two Houses do not debate the Bill, the requirements of Rules 150 and 151 cannot be met and one cannot proceed with the Bill.

This motion makes provision, if the other Houses do not conduct the debates which they should conduct in terms of a legally constituted Order Paper, for it to be possible to refer Bills discussed in this House—including those involving amendments—back to a committee of this House which can consider the amendments in the prescribed manner, the Bills subsequently coming back to the House so that this House can decide on those Bills. That is the object that will be achieved if this motion is agreed to.

What subsequently happens in the other two Houses is regulated by the Constitution and is not part of this afternoon’s debate. I should like to say that it is still not too late for the other two Houses to deviate from the course of procedural confrontation which they have now adopted.

Yesterday, during the debate in a joint meeting, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives said:

Those are sentiments with which I concur.

It’s a two-way traffic.

The hon member is correct. It is a two-way traffic.

Today I am speaking about parliamentary traditions. The course to adopt in order to clear the way for that, is not the course of protest and boycotts, not that of using technical points in an effort to force Parliament to grind to a halt. The course to adopt is that of discussion and negotiation, of participation and not withdrawal. [Interjections.]

No Parliament can do its work if a distinction is not maintained between what a party opposes and what it agrees with. All the opposition parties sitting here know that there are times when they—no matter how much they hate us, no matter how opposed they are to the spirit, course and overall basis of our policy on this side—do agree with us and do express that agreement to us.

We now have the absurd situation that there is disagreement over things on which we know there is agreement. A Parliamentary system cannot be maintained in such a way. What is happening here is that the opposition to specific laws—which does exist and which they are fully entitled to—is being used to undermine even those aspects on which there is unanimity. Sir, that is a short cut to chaos. We on this side cannot permit such chaos to prevail in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The parliamentary tradition and participation in the parliamentary system require another course of action. Parliamentary tradition and participation require that every matter be judged on its merits, and within the framework of the Rules there is also every opportunity to oppose those aspects with which one does not agree. The NP is determined to maintain this tradition. I not adopting a hard-line approach; I am saying this with cool, calm deliberation. Those who think that they can make any progress by way of protest, coercion and the frustration of normal processes, are making a mistake. The NP dare not and will not allow the orderly process of legislation, in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules, to be forced to a standstill through technicalities.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the House said that it gave him no pleasure to move this motion today.

Apparently it gives you pleasure!

It gives me no pleasure to listen to the hon the Leader of the House floundering around trying to save this sinking Constitution. [Interjections.] That is actually what it amounts to.

I would have liked him to have made this speech in the Pretoria or Vereeniging city hall prior to

2 November 1983 and to have told the people: “Vote for the new dispensation, and listen to what is now happening. We do not want chaos in this country.” What do we have? We have nothing but chaos. Consensus has been consigned to the waste-paper basket. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says he is not going to negotiate with the hon members of the other Houses because he was not instrumental in causing the confrontation. That is the spirit of consensus that prevails in the NP at the moment. We have moved away from consensus. [Interjections.] No, it is no longer consensus; it is “the winner takes all”. That is the “old tradition” the hon the Leader of the House spoke about. He bends the Rules and does whatever he likes with them in order to ensure that “the winner takes all”. [Interjections.] It is idle talk to say that this is a consensus-seeking Government. That is something one cannot find this side of the grave. Politics is confrontation, and that is the end of it.

It is very comical to see how the NP sometimes has to twist and turn in an endeavour to arrive, ultimately, at CP policy. [Interjections.] What if not that, is the hon the Leader of the House now doing by making these six Bills own affairs Bills? He is using the own affairs procedure to turn a general affair into an own affair.

Only the procedure!

Yes, the procedure.

It remains a general affair!

Ultimately it is again a general affair. As far as the CP is concerned—we who believe that in every facet of its existence a people must, without interference, have the full right to self-determination—this is a ridiculous situation. [Interjections.]

We say that this is the way things should be done, not as if they were own affairs, but because they are, in fact, own affairs. Those six Bills involve matters which specifically affect the Whites of South Africa. Those are matters involving their own identity and the maintenance and promotion of their way of life, their culture, their traditions and customs, specifically or individually. [Interjections.]

All six of the Bills mentioned in this motion are own affairs Bills which, in terms of section 14 or section 16 of the Constitution, could have been dealt with as own affairs. Why did the Government not take the royal road by making use of those provisions? Why do Rules 150 and 151, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 3, have to be suspended to make Rules 156 and 157 applicable?

What is more, I wonder whether the hon the Leader of the House is altogether correct, because Rule 3 states that each House must suspend that provision. I wonder whether he can get away with this arrangement. There are probably still going to be quite a few court cases about this.

We are saying that by a roundabout way the NP has ultimately arrived at the policy of the CP. The provisions of sections 14 and 16 of the Constitution have not been adopted. Where there is a will, there is a way. By going through a sham process of general affairs, and then by a process of manipulation, the NP nevertheless arrives at own affairs. What a laborious process!

What is all the more comical—if it were not so tragic—is that this is yet another of the succession of collapses we have witnessed en route to the new dispensation. Let us just mention a few of these collapses which we have encountered in the past four years.

How many sittings of joint committees have not either collapsed completely or not even got off the ground since the commencement of this new dispensation, during parliamentary sessions or during the recess? What has this not cost the taxpayer? The hon the Leader of the House says that the taxpayers are paying for this session which is to last two weeks.

What has been the cost to the taxpayer of the whole series of meetings of joint committees which were convened during the past four years and, for various reasons, never got off the ground or simply folded? I would be glad if we could make a few calculations to determine the cost of the meetings of joint committees which were to have been held during various sessions or during the recess and which were not held or which simply collapsed in disarray a few minutes after they had been constituted. On how many days, when all three Houses of Parliament should have sat, did all three the Houses actually sit? How productive are the 308 hon members of this Parliament when it comes to the business of the new dispensation? Here the House of Assembly is sitting for a period of two weeks. Where are the hon members of the other two Houses?

Where is Koos van der Merwe?

They are in trouble.

They are eating samosas and drinking wine.

Those are all costs for which the taxpayers are responsible. Hon members of those Houses are paid by the taxpayers of South Africa. I am referring to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates.

The damage to the credibility of the new constitutional dispensation is, in point of fact, the tragic aspect of all this. What is involved here is the damage to the credibility of this Government, and South Africa is suffering for it. Not a single session goes by without some or other constitutional crisis developing.

This morning the NP’s factotum, Nuusagtergrond of the SABC, spoke about the stalemate in Parliament. It was stated that the idea was for us to move away from the “winner takes all” principle; consensus is now the key word for the new dispensation. In this process it has unfortunately not been achieved, and the country must continue to be governed.

The idea is that we should move away from the “winner takes all” policy, and we are committed to consensus. We are so committed to consensus that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says: “Ek gaan nie probeer om die knoop te ontlont nie—ek het dit nie veroorsaak nie.” That is unbelievable.

No session goes by without some or other constitutional crisis. It happened with the State security legislation. Mr Speaker, you yourself were the hon Minister who dealt with that matter. Even at that stage there was a crisis, and the matter was referred to the President’s Council to defuse the situation. It happened in connection with Rev Hendrickse’s swimming episode in Port Elizabeth and his eventual departure from the Cabinet. That crisis drags on.

At the moment we are witnessing the tribulations involving Mr Rajbansi. We are witnessing the circumstances surrounding this two-week session. All the Bills being dealt with during these two weeks are being dealt with in an atmosphere loaded with tension. We are reminded of the debates on the new Standing Rules and Orders. The wonderful vista of a new dispensation, in which South Africa would find itself in a new lotus land of consensus, has turned into a chimera. The only consensus that exists in South Africa at this stage involves the fact that the new dispensation is a farce. We shall not support this motion. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, after listening to the hon member for Brakpan one can come to only one conclusion, viz that the CP is very sorry that the Constitution was also able to stand this test. [Interjections.] They cannot bear that. Their predictions that the Constitution could not stand serious tests were not realised. Every constitution must be able to stand tests not foreseen in advance. What we are seeing here today is proof that this Constitution can also stand the utmost test, as it is going to do now.

There are two fundamental questions before the House today. The first is whether or not the House is qualified to adopt this resolution. The other question is whether it is desirable for the House to adopt this resolution. With regard to the first question there is very strong and convincing authority that each House is autonomous in respect of its procedures and the arrangement of its business. Section 63 of the Constitution expressly states this:

This does not refer only to own affairs, but to all business of that House.

Apart from this authority, there is the very strong authority of Erskine May, in the twentieth edition of Parliamentary Practice, which indicates that Houses’ arrangements in respect of standing rules and orders remain subject to specific decisions of the House in question regarding the orders. I should like to refer to page 212 in this edition, which says:

In other words, all standing rules can be revoked by decisions of that House, as is the case today.

I now refer to page 215, where the following is said:

If this rule applied in the British Parliament, where there are two Houses, it is just as valid, if not more so, in our Parliament, where no one House is subordinate to the other Houses, but where all three Houses function on an equal basis. This House therefore has the authority to agree to this motion.

The question of desirability is related to the necessity of passing the legislation in question, as the hon the Leader of the House said. It is also related, however, to the right of hon members of this House to propose amendments. It is possible that this House itself can decide to revoke even that right, but in this resolution that we are adopting today, this side of the House says that this legislation is extremely important and that members should be given an opportunity to propose amendments to the legislation.

In addition this side of the House says that the amendment of legislation is a normal matter and that therefore hon members should be given an opportunity to propose amendments. This is a right of hon members, including members of the House of Assembly, and this side of the House is not prepared to deviate from that important principle. This approach is just and fair and any reasonable person will agree with it.

One must also point out that in view of the fact that the House of Delegates did not act in terms of the Standing Rules in pushing aside the legislation submitted to them in order to discuss it much later, or even scrapping it, this is the only way in which hon members of the House of Assembly can be given an opportunity to move amendments.

With regard to the CP, there are two matters which are indisputable, and they proved this to us very clearly today. They are in the same team as those who want to obstruct and boycott the activities of Parliament. [Interjections.]

This motion today is the result of boycotting and obstructive actions. There can be no doubt about that. Since they do not agree with this motion or with this side of the House, they are agreeing and playing along with those who want to obstruct the activities of Parliament. The outside world must know that, and I hope the CP is going to be courageous enough to tell the general public that they co-operated with the members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates in trying to obstruct the activities of the House. [Interjections.]

Another matter which emerges very strongly is the fact that they will not be able to tell the public that there are certain matters with regard to amendments of the Group Areas Act that have their support, because by their actions today, they are in fact scuttling that argument.

Mr Speaker, it was my intention today to raise a point of order at the beginning of this debate because we in these benches believe that this motion is out of order. However. I was informed by the Whip of the NP that if we took a point of order then the amount of time spent on that point of order, not only by us but by you. Sir, as Speaker and by any other hon member of Parliament, would be deducted from the total of 20 minutes we have for debating this important resolution.

Now, that is how democracy works! [Interjections.] I was informed of that by the hon member for False Bay. [Interjections.] I was definitely told this. That is why I did not raise the point of order, but I do wish to make this point. We believe this motion to be out of order because, what are we doing? We are unilaterally, as one House, changing rules that were established by resolution of three Houses. We are unilaterally paying no regard whatsoever to that fact and are actually saying in the motion that notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 3 we are going to do this, that and the other.

Rule 3 states:

That is fair enough. They were decided upon by each House but now we as one House are suspending various Rules. Furthermore, Rule 3(2) states:

This is what we are doing but we are not only doing that; we are not only suspending Rules, we are substituting others, and there is no power given in these Rules in order to do that. Therefore it is our belief that this motion is not in effect a good motion.

Why is the motion on the Order Paper? It is there because of a constitutional crisis in South Africa. It is there because this tricameral farce is exposed for what it is. That is the reason why we are having to debate this motion on the Order Paper today. The situation that we are now in is in effect a massive vote of no confidence in the Government of the day. That vote of no confidence in this Government is by the very members of Parliament themselves.

Any government other than a racist government and one that is totally preoccupied with matters of race would resign under these circumstances. [Interjections.] I challenge the Government of this country to put to the vote jointly of all members of Parliament whether we have confidence in this Government or not. I am prepared to guarantee that the majority of members of the tricameral Parliament would vote through a vote of no confidence in the Government. [Interjections.]

What does this motion in effect do? This motion turns a general affair into an own affair. The Government decided that the matters covered by the six Bills concerned were general affairs. This House is now in fact seeking to disregard this decision of the hon the State President and they are changing these into own affairs.

We must consider very carefully that if we as a House unilaterally do this, we are severely affectin g the rights of the MPs of the House of Representatives and the MPs of the House of Delegates. In order to bring about this situation we are unilaterally changing the Rules of Parliament.

What is the point of having rules? We all know how we had to fight endlessly in regard to these rules. They were brought in, they were rejected after being debated, they were brought in again and ultimately passed. We spent hours and hours of Parliament’s time to arrive at a set of rules which in the event proved to be useless because by the majority vote of the NP we in this House are prepared to disregard the Rules of Parliament as and when we see fit. That is not democratic and I submit that it makes a farce of this Constitution that was established by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

I say to every hon member of the NP that they can vote these rules in, but when they do so they will damage the credibility of this Parliament severely. They will put a weapon in the hands of the enemies of South Africa, because they will demonstrate yet again the totally racist manner of government in the RSA. [Interjections.]

Why are they doing that? What is the reason for the Government actually forcing these Bills through in this way? They are doing it in order to pass laws which are repugnant to the vast majority of people in South Africa. If they were to put these Bills to a referendum of all the people of South Africa, they would be massively rejected. I guarantee that if they were to put it to a referendum of all the people in the free democratic world, they would also be massively rejected. [Interjections.]

In order to pass these three repugnant Bills they are, in fact, bringing the credibility of Parliament into disrepute. This Government is a disgrace and a blot on the face of our country. I believe they should resign. [Interjections.]

Order!

We reject with contempt the motion of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has attacked the system on more than one occasion. It appears to me that every time he differs with the NP, he does not want to attack the party, but prefers to cast suspicion on the system. He and his party know that they cannot destroy the NP, but they are doing their best to cast suspicion on the system and to paralyse it.

Sir, the purpose of this motion is to enable us to discuss this legislation which the hon member is complaining about. Why the hon member runs away from his responsibility of taking part in this discussion in a meaningful way … [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Chief Whip of the NP has interjected across the floor that I am a liar.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! Does the hon member have anything to say? The hon member has withdrawn what he said. The hon member may proceed.

Why the hon member is running away from his responsibility of discussing this legislation is not clear to me. I have an idea that he is subsequently going to be afraid to throw open those specific PFP constituencies as free settlement areas. The hon member for Brakpan made a statement here today which I think did the greatest harm to his party’s credibility ever done by any hon member. He said that politics was not consensus but confrontation. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon member how he is going to implement his policy if he should come into power. By entering into confrontation with the other two Houses since he says politics is not consensus but confrontation?

What are we doing now?

There were comments about standing committees which had folded, but the hon member for Brakpan must tell us how many provincial standing committees the Official Opposition walked out of. How much money did they cost the taxpayers? [Interjections.] The other Houses are doing the same thing, yet now the Official Opposition is complaining about it. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, fixed rules taken over by a House from its predecessors apply only to us, subject to the authority to suspend, amend, replace or repeal them. The fixed, written procedure of a House can come into existence in only one way, viz by means of a resolution of the House, while Mr Speaker can give a ruling or draw up a rule in respect of an event for which the Standing Rules and Orders do not provide. Each of the three Houses upon its own resolution agreed to the present Standing Rules as its fixed rules. By means of voluntary co-operation provision was made for joint conducting of business and for uniformity of procedure, also at separate proceedings. The fact that the Standing Rules came into being by means of such co-operation does not give these Rules a status that reduces the indirect autonomy of each House in any respect, however. The fact that section 64 of the Constitution authorises the adoption of joint Rules does not grant the Standing Rules themselves dominant legal force. The result, therefore, is still that the Standing Rules derive their validity as joint Rules from the co-operation or agreement between the two Houses. I want to emphasise that, because that is the crux of the whole argument. A House’s obligation to the Standing Rules rests on its own acceptance of those Rules and its continued willingness to comply with them. Consequently each House is free to withdraw from the co-operative institution in which the Standing Rules had their origin and upon which the constant enactment of these Rules are based, and to draw up its own Standing Rules about all its proceedings and business, including Bills on general affairs. In this way the other Houses will be compelled to follow suit by at least adapting the Standing Rules.

Rule 3(1)—the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to this, and I should like to reply to him now—provides that any provision of the Standing Rules may be suspended by resolution of each House. The obvious intention was that a single House could not unilaterally suspend the provisions of the Standing Rules about the proceedings and business of joint committees. What one must keep in mind, however, is that the validity of Rule 3 depends on each House constantly complying with the Rules.

Rule 130(c) authorises a House to postpone or discharge or give precedence to an order of the day. Should a House abuse Rule 130(c), however, by repeatedly postponing the order of the day on its order paper for the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill, or postponing it until a following session of Parliament, or until the last day of a specific session, without a definite indication that it will be discussed and concluded then, while amendments appear on the order paper and are not withdrawn, any one of the remaining Houses will be entitled to suspend the provision of Rules 150 and 151. Such a House may then unilaterally deal with the amendments and the Second Reading in terms of a procedure which it determines for this purpose by means of resolution. One cannot permit a House or Houses to frustrate the disposal of a Bill by making use of Rule 130(c) to postpone or cancel an order of the day, because instead of rejecting the Second Reading of a Bill, use is made of this Rule to indicate opposition to a Bill and to prevent it from being disposed of.

The action taken by a House or Houses does not prevent another House from passing the Bill, however, in this way laying a foundation for the provisions of the Constitution. Should a Bill have to be referred back for reconsideration, with other amendments, in terms of Rule 150, and a House refuse to conclude the debate on the Second Reading, the provisions of the Constitution can be implemented only if another House can pass the Bill in terms of a different procedure from that determined by the Standing Rules and Orders.

This side of the House, Mr Speaker, will not permit the democratic process to be curbed. The purpose of this motion is that the system should succeed despite attempts that are being made to hamper the course of the process by means of boycott tactics on the part of both the Official Opposition in this House and the other Houses in this Parliament. The suspension of Rules 150 and 151 with regard to the six Bills and the implementation of Rules 156 and 157 will result in these Bills being dealt with as if they were considered after their submission by a House Committee which makes up part of the joint committee that has considered the Bill. On behalf of this side of the House, I should therefore like to support the motion of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, I think the NP has now reached the stage Pres Carter also reached during his term of office in the USA. From time to time he had big problems—so they say—and then he went to the hall on Capitol Hill in which the paintings of all America’s former presidents hang. Then he went either to Roosevelt or to Kennedy, and he told them his problems. The paintings of Roosevelt or Kennedy then advised him: “Go to the people”, and even Lyndon Johnson advised him: “Go to the people”. Towards the end of his career he was in trouble again and he went to Abraham Lincoln, and Abraham Lincoln advised him: “Go to the theatre”. [Interjections.] Sir, we know what happened to Abraham Lincoln in the theatre. [Interjections.]

My colleague the hon Chief Whip of my party has said that this is a tragic day. I think it is actually tragi-comic. It is tragic for South Africa, but it is comical as regards the NP, and I am glad the hon the Minister of Constitutional Something is here, Sir … [Interjections.] Yes, one no longer knows what it is. It is merely “something”. One has now listened to the lament of the hon the Leader of the House. This lament gave him no pleasure. It gave me no pleasure either, but for a different reason. It gave me no pleasure to see the position to which the NP relegated this institution of South Africa, which used to be the pride of a people.

The hon the Leader of the House lamented, but he is now saddled with his own creation. He is now picking the fruit from the tree he planted himself. We warned them, and it gives me no pleasure to say so again today, because the entire country is suffering as a result of the mess they made. I myself am suffering too. We warned them that they were creating a system with which they were going to throttle themselves. Now the hon the Leader of the House comes along—I think the word sanctimonious is permissible— and sanctimoniously says that the other two Houses are preventing the debate from continuing. The hon the Leader of the House spoke about orders of the day that had been legally tabled, but that the other two Houses were preventing the debate from taking place. However, they are doing so legally. They are not doing so illegally. They are under no obligation to discuss the Bills now. They are under no obligation to do what the hon the Leader of the House wants them to do now. If this had been the case, the hon the Leader of the House could probably have done something about the matter. However, they are entitled to do what they are doing now. [Interjections ] The hon the Leader of the House is using a Rule of this Parliament, in a way which, in my opinion, is dishonourable to say the least.

I cannot hear.

Open your ears; then you will hear. [Interjections.] I want to agree with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. That hon member had a point when he said that it was not the correct procedure to use that specific Rule in that way. No point of order was put, but I nevertheless feel that there was some truth in the statement of the hon member.

You did not do so either.

We considered doing so, but decided against it. [Interjections ] That is not the case at all. The procedure to be adopted in the event of such a difficulty arising, was incorporated in the Constitution. The Government laid down the procedure in the Constitution. I believe that this specific case is not incorporated in the Constitution. However, the NP and the hon the Leader of the House see this as a straw they can clutch at to help them out of their difficulties. The NP has a problem with the Group Areas Act, namely that this Act, watered down as it is, must be on the Statute Book before 26 October so that they can show the voters before the municipal elections how powerful they can be. [Interjections.] That is the dilemma of the NP and that is why they are not hesitating to act in this way. In spite of my low estimation of the NP, as an MP I am nevertheless ashamed of them in the presence of the members of the other two Houses. [Interjections.] How is the Government ever going to regain its credibility in overseas organisations as regards the matter of consensus? Can hon members who talk to overseas visitors in their offices day after day, sell the idea of consensus to any informed person again?

No, they are going to ask the squirrels to do it. [Interjections.]

Sir, they will have to use an animated cartoon to sell the idea of consensus. The hon the Leader of the House has now given us a great show of strength—he says he is not one to use strong-arm tactics—and has said that the NP is not prepared to accept this or that.

I shall content myself with saying that today the hon the Leader of this House demonstrated to the world, as well as to the Coloureds and the Asians, that the present NP is capable of anything when its own interests are at stake. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the House said that this was not an elegant manner to achieve a political objective. That is the understatement of that hon gentleman’s political career. This is a disgraceful way to perform a shabby and unworthy Nationalist trick. That is what it is.

He says he has no joy. I want to ask him whether he has no shame! This debate today is not only about procedure. This debate will ripple out from this House and have implications for all of us in South Africa. It is not just a procedural debate. This debate lays bare the soul of the NP. It lays bare the reality of the tricameral system. That is what this debate is about.

What the hon the Minister has done is to introduce a sad day for constitutional government in South Africa. Does he really want people to have respect for constitutional government when the Government behaves in this way? Does he really want them to have respect for constitutional government? This is a sad day for anybody who really believes in reconciliation, compromise and negotiation as a way to solve our problems. This is the ultimate “kragdadigheid”! This is what it is about.

This Government, faced with a constitutional dilemma of its own making, is converting that constitutional dilemma into a grave constitutional crisis. This is going to develop into one of the gravest constitutional crises to have gripped this country. It is going to happen because they are opening up Pandora’s box so that even within this Constitution individual Houses can now abrogate the Rules and conduct the debates in their own way. The Government is opening the door for a constitutional crisis which they do not yet even understand.

All the pious talk we have heard over the years about consensus-seeking and all the wordy commitments to power-sharing is so much pie in the sky today, so much political hogwash! Faced with the perfectly legal opposition, within the framework of the Rules of Parliament, of the other two Houses to certain proposals which these other people, whether the Government likes it or not, find deeply offensive—and they do find the legislation deeply offensive—this Government just abandons its charade of consensus-seeking, it abandons the pretence of power-sharing and it resorts to old-fashioned, naked NP “Wit baasskap”. That is what it is.

It cynically and unilaterally manipulates the Rules solemnly agreed to by all three Houses in order to suit what it sees as a political objective. It makes a farce of its own concept of general affairs. It is now going to use own affairs Rules to pilot general affairs legislation through this House. Who is ever going to believe the NP again? Who is ever going to believe them again about their integrity and their belief in their own Constitution? It rips the mask right off the face of this tricameral system and it shows it up for what it really is. It is the repository for NP political domination in South Africa. That is what it is.

The only good thing about it is that it is driving one of the first nails into the coffin of the tricameral system, not by us or by the other two Houses but by this hon Minister and the NP. Why is the NP doing these things? I come to the conclusion that it is to satisfy the whim of one man. It is to satisfy the whim of one man and hon members know who that is. That is what it is all about.

They have not argued that the Bills which the Government has introduced are urgent. They have been lying around. There was a report on group areas by the President’s Council. What is this sudden urgency that causes the Government to plunge this country into a constitutional crisis? What is the urgency that they should be passed at this stage in any case?

Has any of the Houses even considered the widespread public reaction? No, not at all. The Bills not only affect the lives of the Whites and their own affairs Rules which will be applied but also the lives of millions of people of colour. Yet, this NP, faced with the resistance even within the framework of the Rules of this Parliament, is prepared unilaterally to abrogate those Rules and steamroller this legislation through Parliament. I want to say this to all those hon members—and I hope that some of the younger ones are aware of this: It shows an incredible insensitivity. It shows a finger-wagging insensitivity. It shows a District Six-type destruction mentality and insensitivity for the feelings of other people. It shows an insensitivity towards the attitudes, aspirations and fears of other communities. Do they not take this into account? Why are these pieces of legislation not held over? Why are the Acts not repealed? Why do these Bills have to be steamrollered through Parliament? Why must this country be plunged into a constitutional crisis in order to have legislation which the Government knows is deeply offensive to millions and millions of people in South Africa?

Hon members should try to understand, if they want to, the strategy of the other two Houses. They might not like it, but it is a way of trying to convey a message to this Government. It is a way of trying to convey the deep feelings which people of colour have about the Group Areas Act and related Acts. Instead of listening to that message and taking notice of it, this Government says: “No, we are the boss. We will carry on. We are going to change the Rules. We are going to subvert and manipulate the Rules in order to make you humble and compel you to live under the laws that we are going to make. We will make you comply with the laws, even if they are general affairs laws which we ‘Whities’ are making.”

What kind of Government is this? Have they no sensitivity whatsoever about the feelings of others? Have they learnt no lessons from the past? Do they not understand? Go and look at District Six. Do they not understand the feeling there is among people of colour about the destruction of the Group Areas Act? Do they not understand that other people who are not White have also got feelings, pride and dignity? Do they just want them to say: “Ja, Baas. Dankie, Baas.” No, Mr Speaker, under no circumstances can we support this.

Mr Speaker, I am sorely tempted to …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wish to submit that the motion is in fact out of order, for the following reasons.

I submit that in terms of Rule 3 the only way that one can do anything in order to amend the Rules is in fact in terms of Rule 3(2), which reads, and I quote:

This is a separate meeting of the House and therefore any provision relating to the proceedings with which we are now busy may in fact be suspended. However, the motion before the House goes further than the suspension of the Rules, because when one looks at the motion of the hon the Leader of the House, one sees that the second part of the motion reads that, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order in connection with this point of order …

Mr Speaker, I am busy with a point of order which I have not yet concluded.

Order! I am listening to a point of order.

Sir, I should like to put a point of order …

Order! I shall give the hon the Leader of the House an opportunity to address me, but now I am listening to the point of order under discussion.

The point of order I wish to make … [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon the Leader of the House give me an opportunity? I shall come back to him.

As I was saying, Mr Speaker, we are making Rules 156 and 157 applicable to the debates on these six Bills; in other words, we are going beyond what the Rule allows. The Rule allows suspension, but it does not allow substitution. We are substituting certain Rules for certain other Rules, and I submit that for that reason the motion is out of order.

Order! My decision is that the motion is in order and, if necessary, I shall give a written decision to this House at a later stage.

I will be grateful for that, Sir.

Mr Speaker, may I raise a further point of order? Is it in order for an hon member firstly to abandon a point of order in his speech and say that he does not intend to raise it and secondly not to raise his point of order at the earliest possible opportunity, and then to raise it at the end of a debate?

Order! I have already given a ruling. The hon the Leader of the House may criticise this in his speech, but I have ruled that the motion is in order and that the House will decide on the question later.

Mr Speaker, I want to react first of all to the hon member for Sea Point. He treated us to an emotional outburst, which revolved around the one word “disgraceful”. I want to ask the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member Prof Olivier, who is seated behind him, whether there was PFP involvement, in the form of advice or in any other form, in the decision of the House of Delegates. [Interjections.]

Those hon members are sitting in this House and instead of doing their work here properly, they devote most of their time to trying to manipulate Coloured and Indian politics. [Interjections.] They participate, but behind the scenes they are the advisers with regard to behaviour which is in conflict with the Constitution and the Standing Rules. [Interjections.] These things do not remain a secret. I am looking at the hon member Prof Olivier, and I am telling him that they do not remain a secret, because other people talk. People to whom he talks, talk to other people, and they in their turn talk. I am telling the hon members that the hon members of the PFP, or some of them, play an ambiguous and equivocal role as regards the parliamentary process. [Interjections.] That is “disgraceful”. It is inter alia because of their interference that I have to introduce this motion today. [Interjections.]

What does this motion seek to do? It seeks to control behaviour elsewhere which is not frustrating the Rules—this is my reply to the hon member for Soutpansberg—but which is seeking to frustrate the functioning of the Constitution. They want that to happen. That is why the hon members of the CP are going to vote against this motion, because they also want to act contrary to the Constitution and not only contrary to the Rules. The reason for this is that the Constitution provides completely for the handling of the situation which arises when a specific House refuses to discuss a matter.

Interacting with one another, in my opinion the PFP also played a role here in endeavouring to prevent the normal procedure of the Constitution, which will come into effect when a House does not want to participate in a debate on a specific piece of legislation. [Interjections.] That is why I say that the “disgrace” in this matter lies with the PFP. [Interjections.] What we are doing is to place those of us in this House in a position to do our work.

We cannot discuss the merits of the legislation, which will be discussed after this motion has been accepted, in the debate on this motion. There will be time for that in those debates. Allow me to make one general observation, however. The Government’s attitude towards an own community life is being misrepresented. [Interjections.] We want to create a happy South Africa by having every community happily settled in a way which will not assail anyone’s human dignity, in a way which will afford everyone who wants to associate with others the opportunity to do so, but also in a way which will allow those who say that they want to be a separate community to do so. [Interjections.]

This misrepresentation of us, suggesting that we want to trample on other people, that we are insensitive and do not understand their feelings and their profounded experiences, is one which we reject with contempt. [Interjections.] This will become apparent in the forthcoming debates.

You live in a dream world! [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow a chorus of voices from the two Opposition parties every time the hon the Leader of the House pauses to draw breath. The hon the Leader of the House must be allowed to make his speech according to the Rules of the House, but not accompanied by a chorus of voices. The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

I want to deal with a few technical points first before I talk politics for a while with the CP. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said that the NP was incompetent to substitute a rule or procedure, although he conceded that we were entitled to suspend a rule. I refer him to section 63 of the Constitution. According to section 63 a House may make rules and orders in connection with the order and conduct of its business and proceedings. This is not in conflict with section 64.

[Inaudible.]

I do not have time for a long and complicated argument. Authorities have also been quoted to him clearly indicating that we are not committing any contravention of the normal rules of procedure, as set out in all sources, and that we are absolutely competent. I want to tell him that in terms of section 63 every House has complete authority to arrange its own proceedings and also to substitute one rule for another, except in so far as procedures prescribed by law are concerned, such as quorum provisions in section 61 of the Constitution.

Fixed rules adopted by any House or its predecessors apply to that House and are subject to its power to suspend, amend, substitute or repeal them. Mr Speaker, you have already given a ruling on this, however. I need therefore not elaborate further on it.

The hon member said he was seeking an opportunity to move a motion of no confidence. Surely, there is nothing preventing the House of Delegates or the House of Representatives from introducing such a motion. They have a constitutional right to do so.

Not a joint one!

They have a constitutional right to do so.

They can only have a separate one!

They do not need his vote to gain a majority for a motion of no confidence. They can get a majority for a motion of no confidence without his vote. Are the PFP unaware that there are so few of them that they will not make a difference? They will not make an iota of difference to the votes.

You are talking in racist terms!

The hon member is talking nonsense. What he wants is for the framework and the foundation of the Constitution to be suspended. That is why the PFP loses. That is why the PFP always loses. That is why the PFP is a diminishing party which is in the process of disappearing. The PFP is changing leaders so fast that its members can no longer keep abreast of developments. That is the underlying reason why the PFP is deteriorating.

You are finished and you do not even know it!

In the last instance, we are being accused of unilateral action. Our unilateral action here follows upon unilateral disregard elsewhere for what should have been done, for normal procedures and for adherence to the procedures on which we agree. *The hon member for Brakpan and other hon members have said that the NP has moved away from consensus. Suddenly we are no longer seeking consensus. They say consensus has finally failed. My reply to them is, firstly, that the NP has never said that there will always be consensus on everything. If we had believed that we would never have inserted a mechanism in the Constitution to handle matters when there is, in fact, no consensus. If consensus cannot be reached and if the existing method for reaching finality is not acceptable to everyone and if there is resistance to it, we openly say: Let us negotiate; let us talk and see whether we cannot find a better method. That is our attitude. Let us seek consensus on how we should reach a decision when we cannot reach consensus. Let us see how we can reach a decision for the sake of stability and good government.

It is therefore a misrepresentation to say that the NP has always said that consensus is the Utopia. We have always been realistic and have said that consensus will not always be possible. There must consequently be mechanisms to handle matters in such a situation. That is why such a mechanism was built into the Constitution.

They raised a second point—and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also mentioned this—namely that we are making this an own affair. That is misleading. It is not true. All we are doing is applying a procedure for own affairs legislation, which only concerns this House because at the moment we are the only House debating this, to a general affairs Bill. However, this does not turn a general affairs Bill into an own affairs Bill.

In order to demonstrate how distorted the hon member’s argument is, I want to ask since when national roads have been an own affair. This Bill is also on the list. Since when have structures to allow residents of all groups in a free settlement area to exercise certain civil rights been an own affair? Surely this does not only affect one group. [Interjections.] His argument therefore does not hold water. What he said, namely that in the Bills matters are dealt with which will in fact be converted by general legislation into an own affair, was true. This is the correct constitutional way to do this.

The question as to whether or not Rule 3 may be suspended has been adequately replied to, and there is adequate authority for this.

The hon member for Soutpansberg said that we have got to where Carter was. He will forgive me if I say in lighter vein that with his new appearance one of these days, in appearance at any rate, he will be where Abraham Lincoln was. [Interjections.]

What about your head?

My head looks like Dr Malan’s. [Interjections.]

He rightly said that the correct procedure was in the Constitution. That is correct. However, what we are dealing with here is an attempt to prevent the implementation of the Constitution, which is the highest Act in the country.

No, you are circumventing the point!

No. What we are now making possible is to ensure that the Constitution can be implemented. That is the actual objective, and that is the objective we are going to achieve if the House accepts this motion. Our rules cannot be used to frustrate the Constitution. A rule is subject to an Act, and certainly to the Constitution in particular. The Constitution Act provides for every situation which is at issue here.

I submit that it is very important for us to take cognizance of the fact that the CP, together with the PFP, is going to vote against this motion.

We knew you were going to say that.

What does that mean? They have not motivated their standpoint. Usually when they vote against something, together with the PFP, they go to a lot of trouble to say that they are also going to vote against something which the NP has moved, but their reasons are totally different to those of the other party. They say they are going to vote against it for reasons A, B and C, whereas the PFP is quite possibly going to vote against it for the reverse reasons. Today we did not get such a differentiation at all, because they cannot draw one. They agree with the PFP because they also want the Constitution to change.

That is correct.

They agree with the PFP because they are in favour of procedures being misused in the other Houses to frustrate the Constitution of the country. So much for their so-called respect for the Constitution!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order to say in this House that other Houses of Parliament are misusing opportunities? [Interjections.] With respect, I submit that that is definitely not in order as it demeans the other two Houses.

Order! The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

Today the CP is gloating over a situation which I submit is a situation which does not give pleasure to anyone who really has the interests of South Africa at heart. [Interjections.] Whatever party is the majority party in this House must realise that the future of this country, if it is to be prosperous, depends on a growing spirit of co-operation between all the people who live here. [Interjections.] The future of all the people of this country is irrevocably bound to the fact that people who want to be reasonable, who want to reach out the hand of friendship to one another, will succeed in setting the pace in this country, and not the radicals who want to turn us against one another.

The day this new dispensation was introduced, a ray of hope broke through, because we had laid a foundation. Everyone is entitled to say that it has certain shortcomings, but we laid a foundation which brought people closer together. An effective channel was given to people who had not had a say in the past, and since that time up to now we have experienced moments when, in the best interests of South Africa, fine co-operation was achieved between ourselves and the elected leaders of other population groups.

That party can never implement its policy without the co-operation of the people for whom it is intended. It will not be able to implement its policy for the Coloureds in the face of the resistance of all Coloureds. [Interjections.] It will not be able to implement its policy for the Indians in the face of the resistance of all Indians. The removal of people, which must result from its policy, cannot be achieved by using bulldozers. They have promised that it will not. [Interjections.] It will therefore only work if people agree to it and leave of their own free will. Every time someone gloats when something goes wrong in a process which is aimed at creating a channel for greater co-operation, he is doing South Africa a disfavour.

For that reason, while we are introducing this motion to allow this House to proceed and complete its work, we take no pleasure in it and hope that a spirit, a co-operation and an understanding will be achieved as soon as possible, which will allow this tricameral Parliament to function as smoothly as it has on occasion done in the past, and that we will be able to work together again— positively, to the benefit of and in the best interests of everyone in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, arising out of the hon the Leader of the House’s reply, for me it is firstly a very disturbing admission to make when a government as powerful as this Government acknowledges that the PFP could succeed in persuading the Coloureds and Indians to undermine the Constitution. [Interjections.]

The CP’s aim is to give the Afrikaner people, and those associated with us, their own right to selfdetermination in their own territory. I do not think we need the co-operation of other peoples to give effect to that right which we claim for ourselves.

The CP refuses to associate itself with the procedure which is being proposed in terms of the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the House because—

1. (a) it is an illegal method to circumvent the provisions of the Constitution after it has become increasingly clear that the Government’s consensus exercise has run aground. Consensus in a deeply divided plural society cannot be achieved in a unitary state;
2. (b) a method such as that laid down in the Constitution should have been adopted;
3. (c) it seriously harms the credibility of the Government, of Parliament and of the country;
4. (d) one can only eradicate conflict by allowing each people the indisputable right to self-determination without interference by any other people.

We ask;

1. (1) Is this how the Government’s power-sharing works? Is this healthy or unhealthy power-sharing?
2. (2) Is this the way in which democracy is being broadened?
3. (3) Will the voters of South Africa still vote in favour of this Constitution in terms of which the Government staggers from one crisis to another?

We are voting against the motion and deplore the stumbling, doddering and spasmodic way in which legislation is passed under the new dispensation. May the very painful experiences we are witnessing here today, and the torment, humiliation and frustration to which the Government had been subjected in the past four years, persuade the Government to return to the tried and trusted methods adopted in this country in the past.

Mr Speaker, firstly I have to recap that we in the PFP consider the motion introduced by the hon the Leader of the House as one of the most cynical and insensitive motions that has ever been introduced in the South African Parliament. It makes the High Court of Parliament look almost insignificant!

Secondly, we believe that it is part of a strategem which is a grotesque and unilateral manipulation of the Rules of Parliament in order to circumvent the intent of the Constitution and to establish beyond all doubt the “baasskap” of the NP.

Thirdly, we believe that this motion, if carried, will do untold damage to the concept of constitutional government in South Africa and that it will also do untold damage to any hope of reconciling fundamental differences between the various communities of this country.

We will vote against it, Sir, but so seriously do we consider this motion as an affront to natural justice and as a subversion of Parliament as an institution, that we on these benches will have no part in the proceedings to be conducted under this motion, should it be carried.

Mr Speaker, hon members on this side of the House will firstly support the motion because it makes it possible for this House to deal with the items on the Order Paper which has duly been placed before this House in terms of the Rules, do its work and do its duty.

Secondly we shall vote for it because it does not deny any other House the right, within the framework of the Constitution or the Rules, to do likewise and to continue stating its views in regard to each and every Bill mentioned in this motion.

We shall vote for this because it augments the democratic process and does not fragment it. This motion makes continued debates possible on the very subjects mentioned in the motion, and this motion in no way denies the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives the right to state their views clearly and unequivocally too and, in the event of rejection, to have that rejection placed on record, thus giving full expression to their views within the framework of the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules of this House.

Mr Speaker, may I …

Order! In terms of Rule 114 is the hon member representing a party or does he wish to speak as an independent member? I am not sure at the moment, and that is why I am asking him.

Mr Speaker, I wish to address the House in my capacity as a member of the NRP.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker. I rise because the NRP supported the new Constitution. [Interjections.] It may be “the late party” but it got there in the end. From my point of view any constitution can be broken by the participants who operate within it. As there appears to be a determined effort to break the Constitution, the time has come where one must give serious consideration to the adoption of decisions which have to meet those attempts to disrupt Parliament.

It is for that reason, and in order to preserve the dignity and tradition of Parliament, that I have no hesitation in supporting the motion.

Order! I wish to apologise to the hon member for Mooi River for asking him whether or not he represented a party. I was not sure at the time, and in terms of Rule 114 I had to make sure. That was my only reason for asking, and I assume that the hon member accepts my bona fides.

The House divided:

AYES—116: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotze, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—35: Andrew, K M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronje, P C; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker, you will allow me, by way of introduction, to make an observation with reference to the decision the House has just taken by saying that I am grateful that the House decided not only to proceed with the activities of Parliament but also to consider legislation which I consider to be essential for the orderly planning of society.

I find it a pity that hon members of this House, who have over a long period adopted specific standpoints on choices before communities in regard to their own community life by way of either association or dissociation, are avoiding this important debate.

†The Government has stated on numerous occasions that laws on the Statute Book are not sacred cows. Let me say this: I make no apologies for stating that the Constitution Act of this country is the most important law on the Statute Book of my country. By the same token, I would argue that when that Constitution Act no longer serves the needs of this country, constitutional or otherwise, I would be the first one to come to this House to propose amendments to that Constitution Act.

The Government does not have a static view on laws as such—by that I mean any laws. It does not cling to existing laws and concepts with a blind rigidity. We do not believe that any law on the Statute Book is a permanent fixture. To believe that would mean that we believe that society is static and stagnant. Just because a particular law or system was deemed necessary at a particular point in time, does not mean that that law can never be amended or even repealed. I firmly believe that laws exist to serve society. I do not believe that society should be the slave of laws, unless society itself wishes to become enslaved. Therefore, as I see it, a law must reflect current needs, interpret current circumstances and cater for those needs and those circumstances. If a law does not comply with this prerequisite then I say that that law must be adapted, amended or repealed.

The Government has stated repeatedly that it does not only deal with constitutional issues in the reform process. It also deals with the economic and social issues which confront our society. Therefore, if reform is to serve the demands of stability and if reform is to serve the demands of progress and development, it should be taking place across the whole spectrum of human activity.

That is why we believe that reform in all its various fields should be centralised and seen as a whole. There has to be a balance in the process of reform otherwise distortions take place which ultimately affect the total process of reform in a negative way and will eventually lead to the instability of society.

To come to the subject matter of the Bill in respect of land use and the occupation of land, the Government has on many occasions taken legislative steps to reform these measures as part of a total planning process.

On the same basis the Government has, of its own accord, scrutinised the laws dealing with land use very closely. I refer specifically to the investigations of the Strydom Committee and the President’s Council. During the process of investigation we received strong and forceful representations from individuals, from political parties and from the business sector. These representations, as I interpret them, reflected on the one hand a desire of communities for protection of their community life. On the other hand, they also indicated that there are those South Africans—there are some of them in this House— who prefer another way of life, a life based on freedom of association.

Let me remind the hon members of the House that when Parliament repealed the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, basic to the repeal Act was the acknowledgement of that freedom of association.

The Bill now before us provides for a choice between two divergent lifestyles. It therefore represents—and I make no apology for this—a substantially new approach to the orderly management of residential patterns in our society and also in the government on a local level of that society.

The legislation acknowledges the need of those people who wish to settle freely and creates the mechanism to make it possible for them to exercise that choice. I know of no law that can protect a man who does not want to protect himself or does not want himself to be protected.

Evidently this is a need which manifests itself particularly in certain metropolitan areas. I believe it may therefore be expected that the procedure for declaring free settlement areas will particularly and as a matter of priority be applied in these areas.

I would like to refer to a few important provisions of the Bill under discussion this afternoon. The Bill states that the State President may promulgate a proclamation to declare a free settlement area only with the consent of the Ministers’ Council concerned.

This requirement is in line with the Government’s view on self-determination and I believe it is also in line with the conviction of all the parties in this House. The truth is that I know of no party or leader in this House who does not believe in the concept of self-determination, and although we may differ, each one wishes to promote this as best he can.

The requirement is therefore not only in line with the Government’s concept and their view; I believe it is in line with the concept of most South Africans.

The Ministers’ Councils have to give account to their respective Houses for decisions which affect the communities which they represent. A report by the Free Settlement Board will be considered before a decision on the declaration of a free settlement area is taken. This will ensure that all interested parties will be afforded an opportunity to put their case. Membership of the Free Settlement Board will be such that interested parties can be assured that they will obtain a fair hearing of their point of view.

Clause 7(9) of the Bill enumerates the matters which the Free Settlement Board, once established, will have to consider and report on.

*This Bill must not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a package of three Bills—people call it a trilogy. These three Bills are related and supplementary to one another. Among other things provision is being made for a new form of local government body. It will be made up from among and elected by all inhabitants of a free settlement area. This legislation will be debated later.

The third Bill is aimed at protecting the own community life of those who prefer it. The provisions of the measure must not be regarded unilaterally as draconian, negative or discriminatory. This Bill too, we shall discuss in detail later.

At this stage I should just like to warn, for the sake of what I consider to be in the interests of the country and all its communities, against a unilateral emphasis of one particular standpoint. I think the argumentation of this trilogy of Bills during the past few weeks has quite probably been more harmful to our country than any other discussion on any other subject I know of.

I find it disturbing that people who maintain that they want to serve the interests of the country are for petty political considerations adopting an approach from which no one will benefit in the end and everyone will be harmed.

At this stage I just want to point out that those who insist on the free choice of settlement, must also recognise and respect the freedom of choice of those who want their own community life. If we are not prepared to grant one another these choices in this country there is no answer to the problems of this society.

On the other hand I want to ask people, parties and communities not to view the group concept in such a rigid and absolutistic way that they reject this Bill as a breach of the duty the Government has to protect communities. Let us at least try to put an end to the confusion here and to rectify the distorted statement of facts in a clinical way. If we do that we are left with enough scope to adhere to our own standpoints on the matter.

Let us consider the package of Bills on the basis of the premises I am trying to discuss. For the first time the establishment of free settlement areas is made possible. Mechanisms are being created for the discharging of local government functions in such areas. These measures ensure the protection of a community life for those who desire it. They create an opportunity for people who prefer another community section to exercise that option too. No one who has objections to the present statutory provisions in this connection can surely, if he is honest, reject these Bills. What is reform if not an adaptation of the status quo? In conclusion, this is precisely what the Bill envisages: An adaptation of the status quo to make it fairer and to make provision, to a greater extent, for the needs and the choices of the communities which comprise the South African population.

Mr Chairman, if there were any confusion outside this House with regard to this legislation, I want to say today that that confusion could not exist as a result of the standpoints which have been adopted by the CP because our standpoints in this regard have always been clear, and the public understands them. Everyone understands them. The PFP understands them. The confusion that exists comes from the ranks of and as a result of the manner in which the NP has acted with regard to this legislation.

In the usual course of events it is true, as the hon the Minister indicated, that an Act is not static and we accept that. An Act must therefore be adapted. We accept that, but it has never been correct to advance the failure to enforce an Act as a reason for having to change an Act.

I continue by saying that in the usual course of events when a government approaches a people by means of an election, the government makes certain basic statements. It explains what the issues are and states its standpoint with regard to them. It is as if the Government, in a similar situation, is entering into a contract or agreement with that people. It states the terms on which it would be prepared to fulfil that contract, if it were to come to power.

In particular, I want to look at the terms which this Government put before the people at the time, in particular with regard to this specific legislation. The truth of the matter is that at a certain stage between the previous election and 1987, the Government put certain proposals to the people with regard to these particular laws— the Group Areas Act in particular. The most important matter that the Government proposed to the nation, was to the effect that during the period between the previous election and 1987, there would be no interference in the sphere of the occupation and the separate occupation of areas.

The hon the State President made proposals on more than one occasion. He made the first proposal in 1981 when he said that it would have to be another Prime Minister who abolished the principle of the Group Areas Act. At a later stage he said that as long as he was leader of the country, the principle of the Group Areas Act would not be tampered with.

In 1983-84, the then Minister, Mr Pen Kotze, said that with regard to an area such as Hillbrow, for example, that situation would not be allowed to remain as it was; action would be taken against the offenders under the Group Areas Act.

I want to say that with regard to the principle of the matter that the President’s Council found it necessary to obtain a legal opinion with regard to what the principle of that Act was. The principle of the Group Areas Act was formulated as follows: It is for control over occupation and possession of land to make provision for the settlement of groups in separate areas. The President’s Council now says the following in its findings: Any recommendation that deviates from this, including amendments to make provision for open residential areas, would be affecting the principle of the Act.

On the strength of this, the hon the State President himself ought to say that he is no longer authorized to be the leader of this country, because that was his undertaking when he said that he would not allow the principle to be tampered with.

Those were not his words on 13 August 1986; you are twisting his words.

Then there is a further aspect. The Government is telling the voter by means of placards and pamphlets that the CP’s allegation that the Government is going to implement open residential areas, is untrue.

The CP gossips!

“If the CP says the Government is going to implement open residential areas, it is untrue”—that is written on the placards. The one placard clearly says: “Open residential areas is not Government policy”.

There you have it!

We are saying that if there were ever a case of breach of contract, this is it, and then we are telling the electorate that they are entitled to withdraw from the contract which they entered into with this Government when they brought the Government to power, because the Government came to power on the grounds of misrepresentations. [Interjections.] It is a misrepresentation, and if there are members on the other side who knew before 1987 that open areas were going to be established, they are guilty of a deceptive misrepresentation. Briefly, we are then saying that the Government does not have the right to amend this Act; the Government does not have a mandate to amend this Act.

But surely this Bill is not amending an Act?

Until today the Government has not yet deviated from the principle of the Act, but they are doing so today. Of course in the meantime they have not applied the Act; that was another way of deviating from the Act.

What is this Government maintaining now again in the words of the hon the Minister? What are they indeed maintaining? Why, as they are again doing today, do they want to amend this Act to make provision for open residential areas? The reason that is being given, is that it must make provision for people who prefer to live in mixed areas. On 7 October last year, the hon the State President made the statement that there were people who preferred to live in mixed areas. That is also the only reason that has been given so far. People who would prefer to live in that way are being held up as the basis for the amendment. In my opinion, the reason has been sucked out of their thumbs. There are no grounds for it and it is merely a transparent attempt to hide the Government’s inability to enforce the Act.

Mr Speaker, may I please ask the hon member a question?

The hon the Minister will have a chance to do so later. My time is extremely limited. The foundation for the Bill was laid as long ago as 1950. It is time that we remind those on the other side of the House who have not only made adjustments, but who have done a complete turnabout, of what the issues were when the Act was initially adopted. I am quoting from the speech of the then Minister of the Interior, Dr T E Dönges:

Dr Dönges continues, and I quote again:

On the same question, in an amendment that he proposed, the Leader of the then Official Opposition, Mr Strauss, said the following, and I quote again:

Mr Strauss went on to say:

At this stage the NP now negates this and—as I have already said—sucks the statement out of their thumb that people would prefer to live in mixed areas. In my opinion there is no basis for such a statement. The contrary is true. According to the evidence that was led before the joint committee in this regard by Coloured people as well as Indians, all groups would like to have their own people around them. Even in cases in which permits were requested, they refused to allow a Black man in a Coloured or Indian area. The basis for this is that people need to live among their own people. That is the reality.

Furthermore, surveys in America have indicated—hon members are aware of it; the newspapers were full of it—that even in that country forced integration could not work.

They have to use artificial methods there to maintain mixed areas. It is said that those areas would again be totally segregated within six months if they did not use these artificial methods.

Furthermore, the reality of the situation is that in the long run the Government is going to find that those mixed areas that they are now creating, will again become group areas for various groups. Therefore, the Government will end where they started, but with wretched results, inter alia with thousands and thousands of rands of futile expenditure which will burden South Africa. In this process they will have to relocate people at all costs, forcefully relocate them, to do what they want to do. The Government will not be able to avoid that fact either.

In short, all the attempts to implement this in America failed. All available evidence that we have here indicates the same. The Government will cover all the ground and in the end will be saddled with places or people, because while it could have taken place systematically in terms of the Group Areas Act, it will now take place in areas in which the Government did not want it to occur. For that reason I am maintaining that it is a step backwards.

If one looks at the evidence that was given before the joint committee and one looks at the standpoints of, for example, the Urban Foundation, Mr Jan Steyn, Assocom and the Institute for Race Relations, one sees that they welcome this principle of racially-mixed areas because it is merely a transitional phase. According to them it is merely a transitional phase, because all the areas will spill over, and that will be the final result. The principle has been sacrificed and if the principle has been sacrificed, the Act will not remain in force.

It is perhaps most effectively summed up in the words of a well-known lawyer who gave evidence before this joint committee and was asked for his opinion on the future of the Group Areas Act. He is a strong supporter of the NP. He said: “I saw the Group Areas Act come, and I saw the Group Areas Act go.” That will be the final result of the steps that are being taken here today.

If this charge sheet, if I may call it that, is not sufficient, one need only look at what has happened since that report from the President’s Council. Firstly, when the hon the State President announced the adoption of the President’s Council’s report, he said:

In other words, he was talking about the free settlement areas and that they had to be initiated by the local authority, and that it should preferably come from the ranks of the people who were involved. Therefore, he was actually bringing it into line with what the President’s Council’s recommendations were, namely that it had to come from the local authority or preferably by means of a petition from the inhabitants of the local authority.

What is in fact happening now in terms of this Bill? Gone is the own option. According to this Free Settlement Areas Bill an area can come into existence if the State President requests it. if the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning requests it or if a Minister of the various Houses requests it …

He asks for an enquiry into it.

Yes, he asks for an enquiry into it.

It can also occur if an Administrator requests it. This Board that is being appointed, must in fact then launch such an enquiry.

However, if a local authority makes such a request, the council need not launch an enquiry and bring out a report. The Bill states that the council may do so, but that it is not obliged to do so.

What is now happening to the free choice? Initially, we were told that it was preferable that the local people should initiate this, but now that is no longer the case. It can now be done because it is necessary or desirable. What does that actually mean? Briefly, it means that the Government is aware that if it were to depend on the local authority and the inhabitants themselves, they would not ask for it. It is now going to be forced on them by the authorities. The authorities are now going to request it. Why otherwise?

You are talking nonsense.

I may be talking nonsense, but I have a little surprise for the hon member. On 11 October 1987, the Bureau for Information published a large advertisement on the Group Areas Act, of course at the cost of the taxpayers. In it they told people: “If you and your neighbours feel that you want to maintain your own area as it is, your rights will be protected.” I am asking hon members where that is stated in the Act. I am inviting hon members to show me.

I want to say something else. Hon members maintain that the rights of groups that do not want to throw open their communities will be protected in the new legislation. Where is that stated in the Bill? I challenge hon members to show it to me. A report may be submitted, but how contemptuously will it not be considered! Hon members must look for themselves if they want to take cognisance of it. Look at clause 7(5). It states that notice must be given. In the normal course of events people must be given notice that an attempt is going to be made to throw open an area.

What else is stated in the Bill? In clause 7(6) it is stated that:

In other words, the Minister can establish a mixed area in spite of that, even if the local authority has not notified the people of that area in advance. Those are the cold, sober words of the Bill. I am saying once again that it has been deliberately included, because the Government knows that requests will not be made by the inhabitants, and that regardless of their wishes, the authorities will say it is essential that the area be declared an open area.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, Mr Chairman.

I want to indicate who constitutes the Board that has to investigate this matter. That Board consists of people who are recommended by each of the Ministers’ Councils. There are three, of whom two are Coloured. The Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may—I take it he would do so to have the Black people represented—designate another one, and therefore there will be three Coloureds. Each of the four Administrators may also designate one. Who will they be? We know that we have raciallymixed provincial executive committees and in most of the provinces coloured persons are still in the majority. Therefore, in all probability we can expect the Board to consist of seven or eight coloured persons who will have to recommend whether or not an area should be declared open.

They will have to submit the report. They will have to bring out the report. Nevertheless, much is being made here of the fact that no one’s rights will be affected.

I want to ask that hon Minister something. He talks about the rights of the people which must not be affected. That is an area that is already mixed. I now want to ask him whose rights he is going to protect there. That White person who moved in there initially, did so in a White area of his own free will and choice. Where does he find himself now? Today, he finds himself in a place in which his own free choice is no longer an own free choice. He wants to leave that area, but where must he go? He does not see his way clear to staying there.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister something. Is he going to listen to the submissions of those White people, or is he going to listen to the majority of Black people? Is he going to relocate the White man? The hon the Minister of Law and Order said they would relocate the White people. Where is the so-called freedom of choice now? Surely it would be a forced removal if I lived in a specific place and I did not want to leave it, but I was being surrounded by people who made it impossible for me to stay there.

May I read just one letter to hon members? We receive hundreds and hundreds of letters like this one. I am only going to read a part of it which deals with the crux of the matter. Hon members must take note of this. It comes from an Englishspeaking woman in Natal. She is 75 years old. They told her that she could stay where she was— among the Indians. [Interjections.] The situation has now developed as follows … [Interjections.] I will read the whole letter. It reads as follows:

[Interjections.] We have received many letters like this. [Interjections.] May I ask hon members where this legislation is going to get us eventually? [Interjections.] I could show hon members many other problems in this Bill, but I do not have the time to do so. However, I want to ask today where this legislation is eventually going to get us. Surely it is self-evident. The principle has been sacrificed. If we look at the moral standpoint that the hon the State President is adopting, we find that he is asking us, what right do we have to say that the Coloured and the Indian we allowed in Parliament may not live next-door to us. He is asking us what moral right we have to do so? [Interjections.] That is the point of departure. That is his premise. Either the morality of the hon the State President no longer exists, in which case we live apart—or it still exists and then we live together. Hon members must tell me what the situation is.

Quote him in full.

I will quote him in full. I will do so with pleasure. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am not going to react fully to the hon member for Ermelo’s speech now but shall certainly react to it in the course of my speech. At the outset I want to tell him that he referred to the run-up to the 1987 election as if there had been fraudulent misrepresentations on our part on the Group Areas Act. I want to tell that hon member that, if he is trying to suggest, as he did here this afternoon, that the NP has deviated from its policy that every group should have its own residential area while it continues to be our policy, he is engaged in a gross and fraudulent political misrepresentation. [Interjections.]

That is not true. It continues to be NP policy. If the CP would listen to the full argument, they would understand it. One of the members of that party could well tell us in the course of the afternoon what the standpoint of the hon member for Overvaal actually is. I am not at all surprised that he was instructed to go on leave while this session was in progress. [Interjections.]

In the course of his introductory speech, the hon the Minister said, and I quote:

Against that background I think it is fair to put the question whether there is a need in South African society which justifies this Bill before us. Do conditions exist or have conditions developed which justify the Bill? As regards the question of whether there is need for such a Bill, it is a fact that in the first place different ethnic groups exist in South Africa. These groups—or at least the majority of them—feel the need to live in their own areas and to have an own community life. Provision is continually being made for that. Surely this Bill cannot be judged in isolation but must be judged in conjunction with the two other pieces of legislation related to it. This debate will probably be followed by one on the Group Areas Act.

It is equally true that at least among the majority of some of these groups which insist on their desire for an own community life they remain welcome to it. This provision is in no way affected by this Bill. Nevertheless it is equally true that because of a variety of socio-economic reasons a group of people has arisen in South Africa among whom a need exists to associate across traditional dividing lines. They desire a different type of community life from the traditional or general South African pattern. This legislation accords recognition to the existence of this group. In other words, this legislation does not negate the existence of existing groups but merely accords recognition to an additional group which does not mind being mixed, which feels the need to be mixed. I can tell hon members of the CP that history shows that some of their forefathers felt the same way. [Interjections.]

This Bill makes provision for one of the most important needs related to this, namely to associate with one another in a residential context. I want to re-emphasize that this does not affect or take away the right of those who wish to live separately. By the way, other leaders in the other two Houses of this Parliament may argue—they are entitled to do so—that the majority of their people are not interested in living separately. They are entitled to argue like this. At the same time, however, they should take note that the majority of people which this party represents in Parliament wish to live separately. It is our duty to protect that right, and we shall do so.

In terms of this Bill, these two other groups also obtain the right, if they are convinced that the majority of their people want to live in free areas, to throw open the areas under their authority. They are free to do this. I immediately concede that together with this there must be adequate provision for self-generated growth and that sufficient land must be identified. The Government is giving attention to this matter as well.

In consequence of this, exceptional emphasis is placed on the question of need. The impression which is being created here, and especially by the CP, that free areas are now the general pattern and the Government’s active policy is devoid of all truth. It is a deliberate campaign of lies which is aimed at reckless, short-term political gain. In the process, the CP is also dealing recklessly with the interests of Whites, including the aged, who have saved for years in order to own a property.

I shall give the House an example of a blatant lie which is being spread by that party. Last year the hon member for Overvaal …

Where is he?

Yes, I wonder where he is. [Interjections.] No, that is merely theory. Last year, during a municipal by-election in Vanderbijlpark, he distributed a pamphlet in ward 6 in which he stated:

This is a lie and, when it was written, the person who wrote it knew he was telling a lie. Nevertheless he distributed it the day before the election for the sake of a few votes.

Order! Is the hon member insinuating that the hon member for Overvaal is telling a lie?

Mr Chairman, he is not present so that I can accuse him of telling a lie or of telling a lie in this debate. This pamphlet for which he was responsible definitely tells a lie, however.

Order! The hon member must withdraw his accusation that the hon member for Overvaal is telling a lie.

I withdraw it. Mr Chairman. The fact remains that this CP pamphlet tells a lie. That is certain. [Interjections.]

What happens to an area like that in the process? A great deal of uncertainty is created. There is not a single area in the Vaal Triangle—in fact, there is not a single area in the country—which has been designated as a so-called free settlement area at this stage. This cannot happen because no legal sanction exists for it yet and this did not exist at that time either. [Interjections.] The CP is dealing recklessly with the interests, the savings and the security of old people and poor people too who have managed with great effort to save up for their properties.

As regards the second part of the question, namely whether conditions exist which justify the Bill before us, only someone politically deaf and blind would answer in the negative. Let us examine conditions which led to the development round the city centres of our large cities, and especially Johannesburg. Surely only a fool would deny that de facto mixed areas developed there.

Why?

I shall come to that. [Interjections.]

Surely this is no different either from what happened in large cities like Washington and certainly elsewhere. There is a variety of reasons why this happened, inter alia a number of economic reasons and a number of reasons dealing with the normal pace of development of urban areas, especially where there are high-rise buildings.

I want to mention only one of the reasons. It is a pity that the hon member for Overvaal is not here. When he was the MP for Jeppe during the … [Interjections.]

That does not matter; he is here in spirit.

Yes, that is clear. [Interjections.] During the 1981 election, when the hon member for Overvaal was the NP candidate in Jeppe and I was a journalist on Die Transvaler he came to see me. Our offices were in his constituency. He approached me and asked me to help him with the publication of an election newspaper. The leading article appeared in bold black letters on the front page: “Jeppe moet skoon”. As early as 1981 infiltration had already taken place there while he was the MP for that area. He said that Jeppe had to be cleaned up. He ran away. But what happened? Close to his constituency there was one of the oldest residential areas in Johannesburg, Fairview, and the flats there had already been demolished because the area had been identified for urban renewal. At that stage I argued with that hon member and told him that, if he wanted to protect the rest of Jeppe against pressure and wished to prevent infiltration, he should use his energy by facing facts and by developing the area, which comprised a bare patch of ground and from which nobody was to be moved, into a high-density residential area for Coloureds and Indians. He wanted nothing to do with this. [Interjections.]

We do not believe in grey areas!

I said as a Coloured or Indian residential area. It is a pity that that hon member does not have a beard or an aerial because he could perhaps hear better then. [Interjections.]

What happened? The hon member for Overvaal disregarded my advice and the infiltration in his constituency escalated. That hon member left the White voters of the Jeppe constituency in the lurch and then fled from those problems. [Interjections.] He left those problems behind and left the voters in the lurch because he was not prepared to face reality and to take proactive steps. Now the hon member is asking this Government to make the same mistake.

Hon members can take a look at another economic factor. Those hon members of the Official Opposition say that they will clean up Hillbrow. Now I must say in defence of the hon member for Overvaal that he vacillates a little and, if I recall, he was repudiated. That party’s policy, however, is that they intend cleaning up Hillbrow. They will remove the tens of thousands of Blacks or Coloureds who live there. Let us accept for a moment that that party succeeds in removing Coloureds from Hillbrow. Where will they find Whites who can fill those residential units again? Where will they come from? There is no such market among Whites. That is why those places fell vacant in the first instance. What does the Official Opposition want to do with Hillbrow? Do they want to turn Hillbrow into a snow-white ghost town in the city centre of Johannesburg?

Mr Chairman, what this party is doing and will continue to do is face up to the needs and realities of South Africa and deal with them.

I agree that it does happen in countries like America and elsewhere, as has been argued, that people live together there naturally and that is the other side of the argument. Why do we have to legalise this? Why do we have to regulate it by law? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon member for Springs, but there is little that f wish to add to the various aspects of his speech. It was interesting, Sir, to note from the speech of the hon the Minister that he emphasised the fact that this Bill must not be seen in isolation, and I think that is a very significant aspect.

However, it is essential when one considers the application of this Bill, that the wishes of those who wish to live in their own areas should be respected. It should also be borne in mind, with our growing population, that inevitably this is going to become a privilege.

The expression relating to the use of a sledgehammer to swat a fly could, I think, not be more aptly applied than to the Bill before us. The concept of declaring certain areas open or free settlement areas originated from the heart of the NRP. For that reason I shall be supporting the Bill. However, the manner in which the Government envisages the handling of this matter falls far short of the spirit that gave birth to the original concept. One has only to look at certain provisions contained in the Bill relating to the establishment of the Free Settlement Board to realise that these make a mockery of oft-repeated statements by Cabinet Ministers that the Government is committed to a policy of devolving power to the lowest level.

Where, may I ask, is provision made in this Bill for the views of local authorities to carry any weight, to be respected or even implemented? I am doubtful whether the proposed settlement board will not be a hindrance to the whole application of the legislation before us in that from its composition it would appear that it is going to be severely restricted and that its flexibility will be controlled. One cannot get away from the fact that decisions taken at local government level in regard to the proclamation of open areas will form the basis on which these areas can be created in any one area that falls under the control of a local authority. [Interjections.] I would like to ask the hon the Minister to pay attention.

I am listening to you at the same time.

Therefore one must realise that the views of local authorities must be accommodated fully in the application of the proposed legislation and that the decisions of elected bodies must of necessity take precedence over those of nominated bodies such as the board that is anticipated.

This is where I see the concept of local option playing a vital role in that it establishes a means whereby the democratic rights of individuals to express their approval or disapproval of open areas can be respected. I cannot emphasise sufficiently that local option is the vital component in the whole mechanism of the establishment of settlement areas. The Government has already stated that the Group Areas Act is not a sacred cow. I think we welcome this, because in its present form it is a practical deterrent to the pressures of urbanisation.

One cannot get away from the fact that as time goes by, the need for the greater spreadability of land among all race groups will be an ongoing phenomenon. This reality must be faced, and there is no doubt that the Group Areas Act will have to be adapted from time to time to meet the urbanisation requirements of the country.

In spite of the protestations that one has heard from the Official Opposition, I can see that this is an ongoing and irreversible process. Let us not run away from the inevitability of this development. We should now be setting our sights on the long-term phasing out of the Group Areas Act. May I suggest to the hon the Minister that local option should be the means whereby an orderly and gradual process of urbanisation can take place?

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to enter the debate after the hon member for Mooi River. The hon member is an example of what an opposition should be. An opposition should differ, but it should differ in a balanced and responsible manner. The hon member’s presence in this House enriches democracy, just as the empty benches to his right impoverish democracy.

The Free Settlement Areas Bill is a measure aimed at social regulation. It affords statutory recognition to circumstances that have already altered within the South African community; circumstances which have altered particularly since 1950.

Why 1950? That was the year in which the first Group Areas Act was adopted as a regulatory measure which interpreted the circumstances of that time. At that time the White sector of the community was, generally speaking, both literate and developed. In contract, the overwhelming majority of non-Whites were underdeveloped people who, as a result of their ignorance and illiteracy, were not easily assimilable into the sophisticated lifestyle of the Whites.

For example, education and training practically did not exist for them, because they were the victims of previous governments, who had shown very little interest in their welfare. They were only acknowledged, even by the predecessors of those hon opposition members who are not here now, at election times, when they were used as a political football in White politics. In 1953, for example, there were only 675 Black children in standard 10 throughout the whole of the Union of South Africa. Only 128 of them passed. That year was the year in which this NP Government took over the responsibility for Black education. Last year in the same area there were 133 862 Black children in standard 10, that is to say, almost 134 000 as against fewer than 700 in 1952, an increase of almost 20 000%.

Due to the lack of time, I shall mention only this one example. It is but one indication of the low level of sophistication of the non-White communities of the early fifties in contrast to the White communities. No wonder all the important political parties of the day were strongly in favour of apartheid.

Hon members of the left-wing political parties in this House, including those who are walking around outside now, cannot escape their joint responsibility for the acceptance of the principle of group areas. In 1950 the present spiritual father of the PFP, Mr Harry Oppenheimer, was the representative here of the constituency Kimberley (City). On 29 May 1950 he participated in the debate on the Group Areas Act. I quote from Hansard: Assembly, volume 73, col 7517:

He also said:

These are words to gladden every good CP heart. He also said that he by no means excluded the possibility of force. Mr Oppenheimer was therefore not opposed to the principle of the legislation. He and his fellow party members of the day simply had their doubts regarding certain practical aspects of the legislation, such as the payment of compensation, for example.

The fact of the matter is that the structure of society in 1950 was such that the separation of residential areas, even forced separation, was accepted as natural by Whites. In many respects the South Africa of today differs unrecognisably from that of 1950. The most dramatic differences lie in, and are the consequence of, the tremendous socio-economic development that has taken place in the non-White communities.

Consequently the non-Whites’ customs, way of life, values and outlook on life have altered as well. Ways of life and views which were previously almost entirely exclusive to White communities, now frequently spill across the confines of population groups. This also gives rise to the formation of groups within the confines of population groups. Considerable numbers of Blacks have, for example, developed beyond the communities in which, by law, they must live. They no longer identify with the values, norms and standards of the masses in the Black areas.

Consequently, they have developed a need to move out of those areas, also partly as a consequence of the fact that adequate spatial provision could not be made timeously to accommodate the upward mobility of people within those communities.

At the same time the attitude of a considerable number of Whites has altered, particularly with regard to those non-Whites who have already moved upwards, and who share their way of life and their views—people with whom they often work side by side at senior managerial level in the business world. They do not mind living together with those people as well. Some of them even display a strong inclination towards it. In this way, therefore, new needs have arisen which cannot be ignored.

There are, of course, those who differ and who say that this should be ignored. There are also those on the left wing who say that. Their standpoint is that people should simply be permitted to associate freely. Society would then order itself. That is the argument.

That is an idealistic approach which I respect. I am afraid that is is also an entirely unrealistic approach in our South African society. What is more, in our circumstances it is unfair. It does not take account of the fact that there certain people, both Whites and non-Whites, who do not wish to associate. That is a fact of life. By far the most Whites fall into that category.

This is visibly reflected in this House by the numbers of hon members who support free association. Just look at their numbers, even when they are all here. Small as they are, they are also displaying a declining trend. There are so few of them that we practically overlook them.

Look at their power bases, too. They mainly represent affluent communities, communities in which people in any event associate with one another only to a limited extent and in which people in any event withdraw into the exclusivity of their expensive, spacious and secluded properties. It is not in those areas that the heartbeat of the Whites of the country, nor that of the other people of the country, is situated. In White politics, outside the ranks of the highly privileged, free association is unacceptable. It is also, as I have already said, unfair.

It is wrong and it is unacceptable that people should be forced to accept the integration of residential areas. If it is wrong to force people to live separately, as our left wing opposition would have it, then it is likewise wrong to force them to live together. Coercion, as a method of ordering residential areas, would therefore appear to contain elements on both sides which are unacceptable to people. Therefore, an opening must be created in order to accommodate those who feel that they are being wronged by that coercion, because it is also true to say that it is unfair to force those people who want to live together, not to do so. The solution, therefore, is to remove the aspect of coercion in respect of such people. That is what is now being done by making free settlement areas possible. The opportunity is being created for those people who want to live together, to do so. Those who do not wish to do so, are not being forced to. That is an equitable approach. It could relieve the existing situations of tension. These are situations that have been created by new circumstances which do not yet enjoy recognition. However, it could also reduce or remove the potential for the emergence of further such situations. If it is applied correctly, it can and will work.

A factor which will undoubtedly be decisive with regard to the success or otherwise of this new development in our community life will be the scale and the scope of its implementation. A fine balance will have to be maintained between needs on the one hand and, on the other hand, the making available of areas in which those needs can be satisfied. If too many, or perhaps even too large free settlement areas are made available, they will, for the most part, become nothing but residential areas for only one population group. If too few areas are made available, the pressure on existing areas will not decrease and the ideal of relieving or removing tension in our community will not be realised.

As a rule I address only the opposition on my left, but since they are absent I should like briefly to address the CP in connection with what I have just said. They have closed their eyes to the truth. They are still living in the pre-1948 era—a period of disgraceful neglect of the interests and needs of non-Whites by former governments, which they and we have jointly inherited. The social and socio-economic development of the non-Whites since then has passed unnoticed by the CP. They do not take it into account in their future planning. They think and plan as if no development and change had taken place within and between the population groups over the past 40 years. They also ignore new needs and aspirations which arise. I want to tell them today that a society has a dynamic force of its own within itself, particularly in its economic life. It has a momentum of its own with which it moves inexorably towards the future. This is a sort of age-old law which applies wherever people live together. It is also what is called “the course of history”. With a gentle hand, and with sensitivity, it may be steered within reasonable limits. Its progress cannot, however, be halted and whoever attempts to do so, will be destroyed.

As a result of the way in which the CP is failing to acknowledge the course of history, of time and of the development of people and communities, there is a danger that everything we hold dear— our language, our way of life and everything that goes with it—may be destroyed. If they were to succeed in their plans, we would lose precisely that which we wish to preserve.

This measure ought to enjoy the support of the CP, more than anyone else, in the interests of their own aspirations. How they can fail to grasp that, is beyond me. [Interjections.]

Whilst we in the NP are using the facts of today, with realism and in faith, to ensure our future in fairness towards one another and together with our fellow South Africans of other race groups. I simply have a prayer in my heart today that my fellow South Africans—I shall never write them off; they are my people—and my fellow Afrikaners in the CP will come to their senses before they do us too much harm.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon the hon member for Stellenbosch made the statement here that there had been a disgraceful neglect of the interests of non-Whites in this country by previous governments, and I assume that he also meant NP governments. I should like to know who he represents in this House. I want to tell him that as a result of the measure which is now being introduced the electorate will be able to realise that the interests of the Whites in this country are being disgracefully neglected by the Government, and the hon member will also experience this at the next election.

Towards the end of his introductory speech the hon the Minister made the following statement. This legislation, he said, made free settlement areas possible for the first time. It created mechanisms for the discharge of local government functions in those areas. It ensured the protection of an own community life for those who desired it.

I now want to ask him how the interests of those people who are at present bottled up in flats in Hillbrow, and also their community life, will be protected when they probably become a free settlement area? There is no such thing! How is the Government going to protect the community life of those people, who through no fault of their own and against their will are going to find themselves in a free settlement area? Or is the Government, as the Minister of National Education said, going to help those people to remove themselves from such areas which then become Black group areas?

The hon member for Springs said that the NP still stood for own residential areas, but why this Bill then? Surely that is a half-truth. As from this afternoon the NP also stands for open residential areas. The hon member said that there was a certain socio-economic group in society which was in favour of living in such residential areas.

I now want to ask him whether there is a White socio-economic group to whom it is acceptable to live in such residential areas. I did not come across them in the election campaign we have been conducting up to now. It does not exist.

With the introduction of this Bill one of the cornerstones on which the policy of separate development of the previous NP was built is being demolished and the principle of open or grey or mixed areas is now being accepted. This happened in just over a year, after NP placards referring to “own residential areas; own schools” had been prominently displayed in every town or city.

Yes of course!

Still!

Go and ask the squirrels to tell that to the people, because they no longer believe the NP.

The booklet The Dismantling of Apartheid is a publication of Prof Thomashausen which is at present being distributed by the Bureau for Information, and which was sent to all of us by the hon the Minister of Information, who praised it highly and even encouraged us to order some copies in order to distribute it among the people.

I therefore assume that the hon the Minister of Information, and that side of the House, associate themselves with the standpoints expressed in the booklet The Dismantling of Apartheid. Here a hundred or so measures are enumerated, socalled discriminatory measures, all from approximately 1982, but all of which amounted to the movement to full integration in South Africa.

On page 23 Prof Thomashausen puts it thus:

This is the opinion of Prof Thomashausen and, I take it, also the opinion of the NP today. The importance of local authorities in the elimination of segregation in residential areas is specifically emphasised here by Prof Thomashausen. I shall come back to this again, because it is also emphasised in the legislation. [Interjections.]

That is precisely what makes the issue the most important one in the coming municipal elections, because if one votes for the NP candidate, one is in principle voting for the possibility of open residential areas, as it has now been moulded into legislation in the form of this Bill before us. Surely this is not a lie; it is true, because here it is stated in the Bill. [Interjections ] It is the outcome of a report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs which appeared on 10 September 1987, and which was debated in the President’s Council from 11 to 22 September. [Interjections.]

On this occasion I should like to place on record what a prominent member of the NP in the President’s Council, Mr Lategan, the member for Pietersburg, said when this report was being debated.

Are you not the hon member for Pietersburg?

I am referring to the member in the President’s Council. [Interjections.] I am quoting from his speech of 17 September (col 547):

He went on to say:

He went even further than the Government is going. This hon member said that the Designation of Separate Amenities Act must also go. He went on to say:

He is probably a Nationalist!

What does this prominent leader from the North have to say in the President’s Council? As in the business world he eventually wants to see differentiating measures in residential areas being done away with in an evolutionary way. This has to happen in the same way. That is the way I interpret his words, and that is what is stated there. I think it is up to that hon member or the NP to explain what they mean by this. This standpoint represents a panegyric on grey areas, and the NP cannot disentangle itself from this.

A few months before that debate took place there was an election, and a month before that election the hon the State President made an election speech in Ermelo. I am quoting what the hon member for Ermelo said last year on 5 October in respect of that election speech (Hansard: Assembly, col 6679):

This is what the hon member for Ermelo said. A grey area is an open area. [Interjections.] It is a free settlement area, as is in fact stated in the Bill. Then the hon member for Ermelo went further:

And today we are experiencing it again in the form of the Bill before us. The implementation of that report and the provisions of this Bill are today a further demonstration that the Government cannot be believed in regard to its assurances which it gave before the election.

If we look at this legislation we see that clause 2 empowers the State President to declare a free settlement area with the consent of the Ministers’ Council concerned. It may be an entire area, a portion of an area or, in my interpretation, even a flat in an area. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the introduction and composition of a free settlement board. As the hon member for Ermelo indicated, this consists of nine members, of whom only one may be a White person. The one White person will be nominated by the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly. In principle it is a mixed free settlement board, which is totally unacceptable to this side of the House. The other clauses make provision for the powers and the modus operandi of the board—who must be consulted and to whom a report must be made.

Subsection (3) of clause 7 provides that the board may at the request of a local government body or a township developer investigate the possibility of declaring such an area open. In subsection (5) the method of notification is dealt with. It provides that written notice by the local government body must be distributed among the inhabitants. The board must call for further evidence. All kinds of situations must also be taken into consideration, including socio-economic conditions.

It is very important that the standpoints of the local authorities should be taken into consideration. It is a fact that the local authority is going to play a very important role in the entire operation of this Bill. It is provided in clause 7(3) that the local authority shall play an initiating role in respect of the operation of the Free Settlement Board. Furthermore the local authority in the second place plays a very important role in the decision-making and in the finalising of the Board’s recommendations.

That is why I maintain that the role of the local authority is of decisive importance in the designation and ultimate establishment of free settlement areas. Therefore I am in complete agreement with the observation the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made on 23 April 1988 in Gordon’s Bay. I am quoting the hon the Minister as he was reported in Die Burger of 25 April 1988:

This is very important, and if the NP would like to maintain its policy and the lifestyles for which provision must be made in this Bill before us, I would say that one would expect the NP to participate as widely as possible as a political party in the municipal elections.

In a working document which was published by Mr Olaus van Zyl he said the following:

Six reasons are then given, of which one of the most important is the Government’s devolution of power policy. He then states in conclusion:

But what is happening in practice? It is not happening, in the rural areas of the Transvaal, that the NP is going to stand as a party. Nomination day is still to come, Sir, but everything in our part of the world indicates that the NP is not prepared to put up a single candidate in that election.

Cold feet!

Even the chairman of the divisional committee of Pietersburg stated in his manifesto that he was a Nationalist but that he was participating as an independent candidate. He stood for a so-called “best man local government”.

Another person’s manifesto, which I have here, states the following:

Not prescribed to by the NP either? He then says “… sal enige poging om blanke woongebiede oop te stel, teenstaan”.

I also have here the manifesto of another NP candidate, who was the former chairman of the divisional committee. He maintains that he stands for (a) separate residential areas; (b) own schools; and (c) no politics on the board. [Interjections.] He therefore stands for a CP policy without politics on the board. This is simply unbelievable! [Interjections.] Now I ask myself what the reason for this strange phenomenon is? It can only be one of two reasons. The mighty NP really does not see its way clear to engaging in an election confrontation with the CP, with the subject of this legislation as an election issue or secondly, these leader figures of the NP are really not in favour of this legislation on free settlement areas. I think the latter is true, because the hon the State President has now stated at the Natal congress that he thinks that if we hold a referendum, 80% of the Whites are going to vote for own residential areas.

I read in the newspaper that the hon member for Roodeplaat said that Pretoria could not be given free settlement areas. I want to ask the NP, if Pretoria is not going to have such areas, to tell us where free settlement areas are going to be established.

Pietersburg!

I want to tell the hon the leader of the NP in Transvaal that if the reason should be that leader figures are not in favour of this legislation—if that should be the case …

Your deduction is incorrect!

… then he as the leader of the NP in the Transvaal has reason to be concerned. Then all these NP candidates, who have expressed such adverse opinions on residential areas, are potential CP supporters. Then in reality they support our opposition to this legislation under discussion.

Mr Chairman, the inevitable consequence is going to be that on polling day the NP is simply going to write a nil total behind its name in a seat in which the NP majority a decade ago was still more than 6 000. This is the extent to which the NP is deteriorating, day by day, until it is going to lose the powers of government at a subsequent general election. That is what is in store for it.

We on this side of the House object vehemently to the overthrow of an orderly measure which worked well and which was to the benefit of the diversity of peoples in South Africa, and we accuse the Government of alienating the living space of our people. That is why we take the strongest possible exception to this legislation, and we shall vote against it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this is the first time I have had the opportunity of speaking after the hon member for Pietersburg, and for a change it is quite a pleasure. His calm tone at least affords one an opportunity of listening. It is not an outburst consisting of a lot of emotional nonsense as we usually hear, but in any event I do want to react to some of the things which that hon member said.

He made a number of statements, including one on the idea of own residential areas and schools, and he said that this was supposedly the slogan of the NP. I just want to tell the hon member that we are going to use those posters in Bloemfontein and in the Free State again because we still stand by those standpoints. I also wish to tell hon members of the Official Opposition that they totally underestimate the intelligence of the voters. I want to give hon members an example before coming back to the Bill.

During the election last year the CP put up a big poster at the ballot box in Bloemfontein North which said: Vote CP and keep the Indians out of Andries Pretorius Street. They thought they would win by far at that polling station. However, the result was that the NP doubled their votes.

Another interesting aspect is the total opposition of the hon member for Pietersburg to the Free Settlement Areas Bill. However it is interesting that several CP supporters in my constituency and elsewhere in the district accommodate Black people in their backyards. The outbuilding and servant’s room often adjoin the house. To them, however, that is beside the point. I want them to think about that and also about how far the people on the farms live from their White houses.

Finally I want to add that we are fighting the municipal election in Bloemfontein under the standard of the Aksiekomitee. This Aksiekomitee has a tradition in Bloemfontein as long as that of the NP and does not shy away from NP policy at all. There is an open partnership between the Aksiekomitee and the NP. As far as the municipal election and the CP in Bloemfontein are concerned, they are really struggling to get candidates. At this stage they are still looking for five candidates. They are scratching around everywhere for these people; people who do not even know how a nomination form is filled in. They have to ask members of the NP to help them to fill in forms, and we play along. In Bloemfontein we are really going to give them a hiding.

I want to come back to the Bill under discussion. As far as community life is concerned, in so far as it relates to residential areas, in South African society there are two groups to be found among all population groups, namely the group that wants to live separately and on the other hand, those who do not place a specific premium on this separateness. The hon member for Ermelo happened to be present when evidence was submitted to the joint committee about these two facets. The Government, as an institution which creates order, must take these facts into account and in the process take the legal principles and the already established rights into account. At the same time specific needs arise in all spheres from time to time for which provision have to be made in legislation. Making provision for the needs means only one thing and that is reform. Reform is the embodiment of a specific need in such a way that the basis of existing rights is not assailed. In other words this means that the creation of new rights and the expansion of existing rights is harmonised with existing rights by the governing body. This, then, is the philosophy of the NP.

I am not at all opposed to the idea that the PFP and the CP should advocate reform in a specific way. I shall just refer to that briefly. What the reform policy of the PFP amounts to is that they seek to create new rights and in the process ignore the existing rights totally. This is a kind of “in spite of” approach or an “irrespective” party.

As far as the CP is concerned they, too, stand for reform. This is reform in terms of which the rights of only a small section of the White population are taken into account and their needs and privileges are claimed at the expense of the interests of other Whites and other groups. That is the so-called “at the expense of’ reform approach.

Over the past five to six years dramatic progress has been made by the NP in South Africa in all spheres of reform. Business districts have been opened up, racism has been removed from legislation on political interference, mixed marriages and immorality, forced removals have been stopped, land-ownership rights have been extended, the citizenship of Black people has been restored, Coloureds and Indians have progressed to the highest decision-making level and already there are plans for Black people in this regard as well.

Free settlement areas—and this Bill specifically—are a very important step forward along the road of reform. Not only is racism being abandoned as a rigid principle with regard to specific residential areas, but proprietary rights are being further extended, while at the same time a new political entity will be created. This is embodied in a Bill which will probably be debated next week—it already appears on the Order Paper.

The ratio for free settlement areas must also be found at the social level and what I mean by that is, briefly, the following: In the economic sphere there has already been co-operation on occasion. This is a reality which has existed for years. It is also a reality and is accepted by the Official Opposition as a reality. It is a matter of working together.

There are also opportunities for worshipping together. In the religious sphere, too—in the Afrikaans churches, it is true, by way of the so-called sister churches—in the organisational and spiritual spheres there is in many respects a similarity with a certain difference.

Not only do people work together and worship together, but in the field of sport they also play together. For a long time now provision has been made for those who want to play together and this regard too members of the Official Opposition have been jointly accountable and responsible on a previous occasion.

Now one comes to a final element, which is a very important one, namely also making provision for living together, and more specifically in residential areas. This is where this Bill comes in. Apart from the fact that there are people who would like to live with others, or people who do not necessarily mind living with others, there is another very important and powerful economic factor at issue in this whole Bill. It is that the White population growth has to a large extend levelled off. This existing oversupply on the one hand and undersupply on the other must and will be dealt with by the Government in a responsible fashion. The concept of being one but not identical, with respect for one another’s differences, is fundamental.

True to the CP style of politics, however, they propound something which—I am prevented by parliamentary privilege from speaking about lies, and therefore had to create another word— amounts to political prostitution. I refer to political prostitution because …

You are the biggest prostitute!

Order! I am not convinced that the hon member for Bloemfontein North has brought about an improvement by his choice of words. On the contrary, he has made matters worse. The hon member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, but I just wish to define what I in fact meant.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Carletonville also used those words.

Order! Will the hon member for Carletonville also withdraw the words.

I withdraw them.

Order! The hon member for Bloemfontein North may proceed.

I shall proceed and define what I meant by the word I withdrew. It is that they continue to achieve ignoble advantage by disgraceful use of the truth. [Interjections.]

In a CP pamphlet several allegations are made that cannot be allowed to pass without comment. They are inter alia that the NP plans mixed residential areas on a large scale. The second allegation is that a township developer may on request establish a free settlement area.

The procedure is very clear. It is contained in the legislation and I do not wish to go into it in detail. It is that in the report which the Free Settlement Board must draw up, it is a priority that every group must be enabled to ensure its own community life. Nevertheless provision is made for free settlement areas in order to accommodate those who prefer to live in open areas.

Mr Chairman, I should like to conclude by saying that in Bloemfontein, with reference to this pamphlet, rumours have been spread among needy people in the very area I have just mentioned, relating to the CP poster “Vote CP and keep the Indians out of Andries Pretorius Street”. Elderly people with whom I held a meeting recently were totally disillusioned about the untruths that were proclaimed.

I also wish to state here for the sake of the record that there are estate agents who are either not good enough to sell property or who have a concealed material motive not to sell certain property, or to force prices down in order to persuade these unsuspecting people to get rid of their property for a song. I wish to state that nowhere in the legislation is there any mention of any area being identified for free settlement.

I wish to conclude by just briefly pointing out to the hon member for Ermelo that in my opinion a specific subsection that, according to him, aims at circumventing the decision of the inhabitants, should in my opinion be interpreted as affording the inhabitants the opportunity to be consulted in one way or another.

I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I do not necessarily want to become deeply involved in the CP-NP struggle, except to say one thing. Unfortunately I do not have it with me, but in 1984 the NP in Primrose published a little newspaper in which it said: “Never, never grey areas.” However this legislation refers to grey areas.

In the same newspaper it is said that the NP will never get rid of the Immorality Act. Sir, the NP has changed as a Government. They must not conceal that. [Interjections.]

The hon member may not realise that I mean that he has not yet changed enough.

No, I say that we have changed. We have changed so much that we even accept you.

No, Sir. Today there is legislation before us that seeks to do precisely the opposite. The NP does not know what it wants to do. It wants to satisfy the CP and it wants to satisfy the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives. They cannot satisfy both; they have to choose. If not, they will be like the old UP.

The Bill before us at present is the first of three group areas measures that are being dealt with during this session which are widely known as the trilogy of group areas measures. I should prefer to call them the unholy trilogy of laws. It is truly a tragic day for South Africa when at this stage the Government, which has supposedly committed itself to reform, introduces a whole series of measures that entrench racism in our Constitution.

The legislation before us is based on the Government’s point of departure that the aspirations and endeavours of Whites and Blacks in South Africa are basically and inherently conflicting and irreconcilable. Because that was the standpoint of the NP, it created its apartheid policy and that is why it is not prepared to allow Whites and Blacks to coexist in one common society today.

The CP believes so strongly in this clash of aspirations of Whites and Blacks that they want to go so far as to divide South Africa, by means of partition, into a separate White country and a separate Black country. At least that is more honest, although I definitely reject it.

If the standpoint of the NP and the CP is correct—in other words, that Black and White aspirations are irreconcilable and that accordingly the two groups are unable to share the same territory—there is no future for the White minority group in a unitary state in this country. If the interests and aspirations clash, there is no future for a White minority group in a country like South Africa where everyone—White and Black—will live. The reason for that is that if the values, way of life and aspirations of the Black man clash fundamentally with those of the Whites, surely it is logical that the numerical strength of the Black people will in the long or the short term have to make itself felt, whatever system is adopted here.

It is a tremendous catastrophe for South Africa that since it was formed the present Government has employed all conceivable means, and particularly the media, to convince Whites that Whites and Blacks cannot coexist as equals, that their aspirations are irreconcilable and that equal participation by Blacks in the dispensation will lead to chaos, bloodshed, oppression etc. There are many such words.

For decades the State’s propaganda machinery has placed all negative developments in Africa under a microscope. Every disaster that has taken place in Africa, no matter where, has been used on television, in our newspapers and in Parliament to convince the Whites that Blacks cannot be trusted if the vote or power should be shared with them, because after all, Blacks do what they did in Africa: They destroy democracy; they murder one another.

That image of Blacks has been presented actively for decades, and the tragedy is that more and more Whites believe it today. They believe it so emphatically that, while the NP is trying to move away from that image, the CP is getting those people’s support, because they still believe what the NP told them.

This propaganda of the Government was so successful—I am referring to the days when I was in the PFP and I was responsible for the party’s propaganda for many years—that when the PFP went to the voters and said, let us negotiate about a new dispensation, let us negotiate with Black leaders about a new constitution and a new charter of human rights, the Whites, as a result of the propaganda, asked us why we were offering them any such thing? After all, Blacks have no respect for constitutions. Blacks have no respect for charters of human rights. They support them at conventions, and then tear them up.

This is the image of Blacks that the NP presented and is still presenting.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? He said that was the image we presented. What are the facts?

Mr Chairman, the implication of the hon the Minister’s question is that he is trying to say that the facts prove this.

I am asking what the facts are.

No, no! Surely the hon the Minister must have a reason for asking the question. [Interjections.] The fact that he is putting that question means that he is telling us that the Blacks are still regarded in that way. [Interjections.] No, Sir, if the hon the Minister is really drawing up a constitution on that basis, he is double-crossing everyone. [Interjections.] No, Sir, if he still believes that that is what Blacks are like, surely he cannot handle the negotiations with the Black groups.

Give us the facts.

The hon the Minister can give them to us. Obviously he knows what the facts are. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may the hon member say the hon the Minister is double-crossing the people?

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “double-crossing”.

I shall do so. Sir.

In my constituency, Claremont, as in most other urban constituencies, I am approached day after day by voters who want to know whether there is a future for Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] No, wait, Sir.

Most members of Parliament hear that question from concerned voters about their and their children’s future. They ask that question, because generally there is no stability in the political, economic and social spheres. My answer to them is very simple. My answer is unambiguous: Yes, there is a future in this country, regardless of the lack of stability in the political, economic and social spheres which is being caused by the Government at this stage. There is a future.

I shall tell the hon member why I say that. During the past three years it has been my privilege, in the midst of the unrest, to have been very closely involved in the Black community. I do not want to go into any details, so the hon member need not be concerned.

During these three years I have been intimately involved with Black communities, communities which have had to suffer, which have experienced misery as a result of unrest and police action. [Interjections.] That does not matter.

Despite all the suffering of those communities, they were and are still prepared to enter the future with White South Africans. There is no anti-White sentiment. There is a desire to build a new future with the Whites. There is no desire to chase Whites into the sea, despite everything that has happened in those communities. That gives us hope. It gives me hope for the future.

It is my experience that the aspirations, basic needs and endeavours of the Blacks do not differ from those of the Whites. They also want a stable family life. They also want their children to be educated. They also want the franchise, because they themselves want to determine what is going to happen to them in future. I become pessimistic, however, when I have to listen in this House to speeches made on that side of the House and by the CP, speeches that are filled with fear—fear of sharing with fellow citizens, fear of taking on the future with the Blacks. One cannot trust people who are motivated by fear with the future of one’s country. One cannot.

In this time we are talking of two Great Treks. I want to conclude on that point. In the days of the Great Trek people had courage. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, during my schooldays I greatly enjoyed reading Tarzan books, but I also very much enjoyed reading “Rooi Jan” books. The hon member for Claremont reminds me a lot of “Rooi Jan”. He made a point of stating here that it was the NP which was deliberately out to put Africa in a bad light by means of propaganda campaigns.

I just want to remind him that it was during a conference of the OAU that one of the African leaders stood up and said: “Africa is dying”. What we should like to convey to the South African public is the consequences of a Marxist government taking power by force and applying socialism. That is what we should like to convey.

We are not talking about that!

Of course we are talking about that.

I should like to congratulate the chairman of the joint committee who dealt with this trilogy of Bills, the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, on the way in which he acquitted himself of his duty. I do not think that these were the three easiest Bills to put forward. I want to congratulate him on the capable way in which he dealt with these difficult matters.

The general rule in South Africa is that people of different population groups are settled in own residential areas. This is the general rule. With the exception of the Bible, however, absolute rules which are immutably valid for all time, do not exist.

There are exceptions to all general rules. I want to refer to grammar. There are linguistic rules, but there are essential exceptions to those rules. Without these exceptions, one cannot speak, write or read a language correctly. [Interjections.] The fact remains that those exceptions never become the rule. I want to repeat this. The general rule in South Africa is that people of different population groups are housed in separate residential areas for understandable reasons. Besides this general rule, however, there are exceptions as well. The aim of this Free Settlement Areas Bill is simply to regulate these exceptions by way of statute.

It is a fact that practical circumstances in South Africa require that legal provision be made for free settlement areas. It is surely also a fact that on the strength of certain socio-economic conditions there are areas in South Africa where people live on a mixed basis. It is surely a fact that a shortage of housing for a specific population group and an oversupply of housing for another population group has led de facto to mixed residential areas. Surely this is nothing new. [Interjections.] Since the Group Areas Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1950, there have after all been areas which could never be separated. That is why in 1981 the NP in its election manifesto, in the twelve-point plan, committed itself to own schools and own residential areas wherever possible. That qualification was included then already.

It is after all a reality that there are certain areas in South Africa to which the concept of exclusivity with regard to own residential areas cannot be applied. If this was the case during the sixties, it is even more so now, since we are now dealing with an accelerated process of urbanisation. It is absolutely imperative that there be legal certainty with regard to certain areas that are de facto mixed residential areas, and this is also one of the aims of this legislation. It is wishful thinking to allege that residential areas that in fact were never so-called White can now become White.

In Sunnyside in Pretoria the CP put up a poster which stated: “The CP will put it right”. However, this is also wishful thinking, and I shall tell hon members why.

What is written in Gezina? [Interjections.]

Let us just leave Gezina. I shall tell the CP why their poster in Sunnyside is not working.

What about Gezina? [Interjections.]

Right, that thing did not work, but the poster of the CP in Sunnyside is not going to work either. I shall tell hon members why not. If in spite of the Group Areas Act, and with the SAP and the Army at his disposal, Dr Malan could not separate certain areas, how is the CP going to do this? If Advocate Strijdom, in spite of the Group Areas Act, and with the SAP and the Army at his disposal could not separate certain areas, how is the CP going to do this? [Interjections.] If Dr Verwoerd, the man of granite, in spite of the Group Areas Act and with the SAP and the Army at his disposal, could not make certain areas White, how is the CP going to do this? I think they can forget about that dream. [Interjections.] Their poster states: “The CP will put it right”, but to that I want to say: “The CP cannot put their own backyards right”. [Interjections.] They should therefore not use this issue to mislead the voters.

The fact is this legislation can be used as an instrument to bring about legal certainty in areas where there are already de facto mixed residential areas. However, this does not mean that such areas are ipso facto going to be declared free settlement areas. This Bill stipulates certain procedures, and according to those procedures it is a fact that the inhabitants of a specific area have to be acknowledged. They have vested rights there, and it is correct that it should happen in this way.

These procedures also make provision for taking into account the possible social and socio-economic consequences that may arise if an area is declared a free settlement area. It is probably necessary sometimes to introduce a process of upgrading in areas which are de facto free settlement areas first of all before one legalises the situation there.

I want to repeat that this Bill provides that areas which became mixed due to practical circumstances may de facto be converted into free settlement areas. This is a good thing, but the real intention of the Bill is also to make provision for new free settlement areas. This is to provide for the needs of people who do not mind living together or next to each other.

It is only Nationalists who feel that way.

This is to accommodate people such as the hon member for Overvaal, who does not mind living next to people like Jake Gerwels. [Interjections.] It is a good thing that in terms of this Bill provision will also be made for those people.

Do you mind living next to him?

Sir, if I had a choice, and I have that choice, I would live amongst my own people. [Interjections.] I consequently want to go into the objections that are being raised against this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order! There has been enough shouting now. This must stop. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to go into the objections that are being raised against the Bill by the PFP and CP members. The PFP argues that in terms of this Bill one cannot really proclaim a free settlement area. They say that the procedure is too cumbersome and that the people who have to be consulted, the registered voters in an area, are all in fact White and that those voters therefore have a veto as it were to prevent the possibility of a free settlement area being established.

Of this criticism I just want to say the following which also links up with a question that was put by the hon member for Pietersburg. In evidence that was before the joint committee, it came to light that in those areas where people have been living together for ages, the objection is not so much to a person of colour moving in next to one. However, the objection is to overcrowding and the deterioration of standards that results because of overcrowding. In other words, these people will not object simply because the person who moves in next-door to them are Black, Coloured or Oriental. However, they will object when that process of moving in leads to overcrowding and deterioration. That is why it is essential and why there is a prerequisite to be complied with before an area can be declared a free settlement area. This is that existing measures, even new measures, as well as municipal by-laws and health regulations that could prevent this kind of situation hae to be applied. I in any case want to point out that as I see the matter developing, people of a higher economic income group will live in new areas and therefore this problem will be eliminated.

The PFP also states that one cannot open certain areas only because it would then place too much pressure on those specific areas. It once again not only concerns existing areas that one can declare open. It also concerns the establishment of new areas in metropolitan areas. When new areas are established, it will obviously also reduce the extra pressure on an existing area which is declared a free settlement area.

However, I cannot understand that the PFP, who has so much to say about these matters, voted against the desirability of this Bill in the joint committee. I could not understand this, but I understand it this afternoon. This boycott action that has now arisen here, shows me that we live in an era where, when people do not get their way politically, parliamentary procedures are boycotted. We find this with the House of Representatives and the PFP. I think the PFP is doing this because they no longer have a leader here in Parliament. This is also true of the CP, who boycotted the meetings of the provincial committees. [Interjections.] We cannot build democracy in South Africa in this way.

As far as the criticism of the CP is concerned— previous speakers have referred to this—it is now being alleged that the principle of separate residential areas is going to be done away with. However, if this is the case I wonder how they account for it that a second part of this Bill to a certain extent makes provision for the reinforcement of the Group Areas Act. The CP states that all residential areas are now going to be opened. There is no longer a residential area in South Africa that is not going to be opened. They also virtually state that all those opened areas are going to be converted into slum areas. Surely this procedure will prevent this. I do not want to dwell on this matter. The board of experts which can investigate the matter has to be appointed. Indeed, the hon the State President has to make a proclamation.

A point I want to make here is that if that area falls within the area of jurisdiction of a White local authority, it is in any case that particular Ministers’ Council which has the final say. It is therefore not true that free settlement areas are now going to mushroom everywhere.

In conclusion I just want to make two remarks. The Free Settlement Areas Bill should be read together with the other legislation. I do not think that one can tighten up group areas measures if one does not at the same time make provision for the Free Settlement Areas Bill. It is also a fact that local authorities are hesitant to make new residential areas available in metropolitan areas. The very fact that one has an open area in a metropolitan area eventually serves as protection for one’s own residential areas. It is with pleasure that I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, our standpoint on the Group Areas Act, which actually deals with a whole series of Acts on which we shall conduct further debates, is very clear, namely, that if we on this side of the House had had the power, we would get rid of the Act in the knowledge that that is the way which would hurt least and where one would also have the broadest possible market forces capable of handling it. It is also known that our standpoint is one which is aimed at the process itself. We have never adopted a standpoint of being puristically dogmatic; on the contrary, our approach throughout has been that a person should view a process pragmatically. We do not believe that one can land at a given point out of the blue of a cloudless sky. One has to find a way of getting there; in fact, it is more important in the murkiness in which we find ourselves to dive into that murk to look for ways within it of moving toward the light. I think this is the approach which we should follow and it is also the one which can work on the road ahead. [Interjections.]

In judging this legislation, we asked ourselves where we stood. I want to say frankly that we decided to support this legislation. It is not that we intend supporting it on the basis of what we believe the Government’s intention is. In this regard it does not help either to judge what the intention of the other side is and then to adopt a standpoint on that basis and stick to it. One also has to look at what the results will be. The intention does not matter; if the result has positive possibilities, one is obliged to support it. We reached this decision on that basis.

It is also important for me to say how we read the Government’s intention with this measure. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys, who has just spoken, actually put the point very well when he referred to the earlier standpoint in the twelvepoint plan that where practicable they want to maintain own areas—in other words, group areas. This is why we do not see the legislation before us as an intention to throw areas open and get rid of the Group Areas Act. It is not a proactive step to arrive at a future somewhere in which we are rid of the Group Areas Act.

It is a reactive way of saying that matters have developed in such a way that the Act can no longer be applied. It is no longer practicable to apply it in certain areas and those areas are therefore going to be called “free settlement areas”. That takes the problem out of the Government’s hands. As regards colour, Hillbrow cannot be separated; it cannot be left as it is. There is an Act on our Statute Book so what are we to do? [Interjections.] Then they argue that the only solution is to accept the datum point, bring the Statute in line with it and retain the Group Areas Act.

What about new areas?

We believe that the Government, although it is its intention to retain the Group Areas Act in essence, will not succeed in this. The process will continue and the time is not very distant when the Government will scrap the Group Areas Act in any case in a reactive way. This fact is as plain as a pikestaff and all of us in this House know it; it makes no difference to which party we belong. We may argue and fight about the time but my calculations are that we shall no longer have a Group Areas Act on the Statute Book in four or five years’ time. [Interjections.]

The NDM did not have the opportunity of participating in the discussion of the motion moved here earlier today because of a misunderstanding between the NP Whips and ourselves but I am not trying to blame that for it. What happened there also indicates the Government’s unyielding determination to proceed with legislation regardless of opposition. It emerges very clearly from the fact that the legislation was introduced after Parliament had adjourned and the entire process passed on to the President’s Council that the Government certainly acts arbitrarily regarding its own objectives.

The legislation before us, as well as the entire group of Bills which we are still to deal with, is extremely sensitive. It is not legislation which is urgently required for good, effective administration. The other Houses entered a system for the very purpose of also attempting to move forward in a process. They have little choice but to act pragmatically as well.

In a sense they are acting as Chief Minister Buthelezi has acted over the years, by actually participating within a system but withholding participation form time to time and not going along with the process—specifically in an attempt to promote a democratic spirit. [Interjections.] It is not merely a withdrawal and a boycott. True democracy is vested in its spirit; not in creating constitutions and in applying and conforming to rules and true democracy also requires pause and review from time to time.

I want to appeal to the Government to pause and ask itself what it is really engaged upon. Is it not perhaps necessary to pause and reconsider? Is it not perhaps necessary to try to enter into dialogue with people who can do no other than withhold their co-operation within a system of participation?

If the Government does not want to look at this nor act in this way, the question is what the rest of us are doing here. Two Houses are no longer sitting. The CP, we and a few other individuals are still here but, if it is the Government’s intention to proceed in this way—it has given clear notice of this—it does not make much sense.

I want to appeal to the Government really to consider whether the democracy about which it makes such a fuss is not more deeply rooted in a spirit and whether this democracy does not now require pause in preference to pressing on and pushing through. [Interjections.]

Having made this appeal, I also intend it to convey that it appears to us that, if the Government does not listen to the others, it will not listen to us either. Then we shall not take the trouble either—we think we shall be unable to make a contribution in such a case—of participating further in the discussion and the debate centred on the six Bills which were the subject of the motion.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting to note that immediately he has spoken, the hon member for Randburg cuts and runs. I also found it interesting that just before he delivered his speech, he was writing furiously. Then I realised what was happening; the hon member for Durban Central was dictating the speech which he made. I wonder how many times that has already happened in the past year.

The hon member also suggested that if the NDM ever came to power, which they never will, he would do away with the Group Areas Act and let economic forces take over to solve the problem. I can tell the NDM that there are other forces at play, there are social forces, there are health forces and many other forces including political forces. One cannot simply allow economic forces to endeavour to rule and solve the problem that we have.

The Bill before us represents yet another step in the process of evolutionary change in South Africa. On 31 October 1984 the hon the State President requested the President’s Council to advise him on the report of the Technical Committee of Enquiry into the Group Areas Act, 1966.

The Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council deliberated for almost three years, hearing evidence and conducting an indepth study into the whole matter of group areas. In an enlightening report delivered on 10 September 1987, the committee made wide-ranging recommendations. I would like to quote from two of those recommendations; Recommendation 5.55.2 and Recommendation 5.56;

That was on 10 September 1987. Recommendation 5.56 crystallised the whole principle that besides these own residential areas, open areas should be established.

The hon the State President in his reaction speech on 5 October 1987 stated:

He confirmed, however, that the Government would go about the matter in a responsible manner.

The NP is often unjustly accused of lacking progress in real reform. Yet less than one year after receipt of the President’s Council’s report, we have tabled this Bill today. That is something which I believe the Government should be given credit for.

This Bill represents concrete reform. We were given a mandate on 6 May last year, a strong mandate for reform, and this Government is determined to carry out that mandate. For the first time under NP rule, the principle of multiracial residential areas is to be implemented in the Republic of South Africa. That is an enormous step forward.

The decision is a courageous one but it is also a common sense one. The point which must be underlined and must be emphasised is, however, that this development will be carried out in an orderly manner. Haphazard residential integration is a certain recipe for social and racial friction.

Under this Bill people in South Africa will now have a free choice to reside either in their traditional group area or in the new free settlement area. The legislation is a major departure from the principle of exclusive group areas. It amounts to a reconciliation and a compromise between the concepts of group rights and individual rights.

The Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council found that because of the traditional pattern of residential settlement in South Africa, the Group Areas Act could not be summarily scrapped.

This Government has adopted a pragmatic attitude to the developing circumstances in South Africa. It is adapting policies to suit the times. It is fostering the evolutionary process of reform. It is keeping up to date.

It is a great pity that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates have seen fit to adopt an uncompromising attitude in regard to the Group Areas Act. They would have encouraged the process of reform by at least supporting this Bill and the Bill providing franchise for residents of open areas. There is no doubt that these steps are progressive steps. They are not regressive steps.

This legislation, if it becomes law, will apply equally to the Ministers’ Councils of all three Houses. The powers afforded the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly will be the same as those afforded the other two Ministers’ Councils. In fact, the Ministers’ Councils of the three Houses will have the power under this proposed Act to recommend that all residential areas under their respective control be open areas—I emphasise the words “to recommend”.

It remains to be seen, however, if this will be generally acceptable to the Coloured and Indian communities as a whole in South Africa. We in these benches will follow very closely the line of action which the Labour Party and the House of Delegates’ Ministers’ Council will follow in this regard. In view of their continued cry for the scrapping of the Group Areas Act they should welcome the opening of their residential areas, but we will watch closely what happens.

Finally, the Bill makes provision for the establishment of a Free Settlement Board and the rules and procedures that will be followed. In this regard there are certain areas in South Africa to which the urgent introduction of free settlement areas really lends itself. I would urge the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that, if this Bill is duly enacted and assented to by the hon the State President, the hon the Minister should, through his department, take all such steps as may be necessary to enable the early establishment of the proposed board and the procedures to be followed in applications for open areas.

The matter is urgent. There is every reason to support the legislation and I accordingly have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.